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

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the 

Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Feasibility Study of Economics 

and Performance of Solar 

Photovoltaics at the Vincent 

Mullins Landfill in Tucson, 

Arizona

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

Matthew Steen, Lars Lisell, and Gail Mosey

Produced under direction of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

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

Interagency Agreement IAG-08-0719 and Task No. WFD3.1001. 

Technical Report

NREL/TP-7A40-56812

January 2013 
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

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

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

15013 Denver West Parkway

Golden, CO 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

Feasibility Study of Economics 

and Performance of Solar 

Photovoltaics at the Vincent 

Mullins Landfill in Tucson, 

Arizona 

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

Matthew Steen, Lars Lisell, and Gail Mosey

Prepared under Task No. WFD3.1001

Technical Report

NREL/TP-7A40-56812

January 2013 
NOTICE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

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

the assessment team for this project are grateful to the Vincent Mullins Landfill facility 

managers, engineers, and operators for their generous assistance and cooperation. 

Special thanks go to Shea Jones, Lura Matthews, Andria Benner, and Jessica Trice from the 

EPA; Katie Brown, AAAS Science & Technology Policy fellow hosted by the EPA; and Bruce 

Plenk, Jeff Drumm, Lisa Cuestas, and Lynn Birkinbine from the City of Tucson for hosting the 

site visits and providing all the information needed by the team. 
iv

Executive Summary

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

America’s Land initiative, selected the Vincent Mullins Landfill in Tucson, Arizona, for a 

feasibility study of renewable energy production. Under the RE-Powering America’s Land 

initiative, the EPA provided funding to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to 

support the study. NREL provided technical assistance for this project but did not assess 

environmental conditions at the site beyond those related to the performance of a photovoltaic 

(PV) system. The purpose of this report is to assess the site for a possible PV installation and 

estimate the cost and performance of different PV configurations, as well as to recommend 

financing options that could assist in the implementation of a PV system. In addition to the 

Vincent Mullins site, four similar landfills in Tucson are included as part of this study. 

The feasibility of a PV system depends greatly on both site-specific and economic factors. Sitespecific factors include the available area for an array, solar resource, distance to transmission 

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

restrictions associated with redevelopment of contaminated sites impact the feasibility of a PV 

system. Economic factors include purchase price of the electricity produced, power purchase 

agreement (PPA) price, and retail electric rates along with federal, state, and utility incentives for 

PV systems. Based on an assessment of these factors, the Vincent Mullins Landfill and other 

closed landfills in Tucson were found to be suitable sites for deployment of utility-scale PV 

systems. 

This study evaluated two development scenarios for implementing large-scale PV systems on 

Tucson’s landfills—one in which the city owns and operates the system, and one where a private 

entity is allowed to develop the site using a PPA. Table ES-1 summarizes the predicted 

economics of the two scenarios along with the system size, energy production, and cost. 
v 

Table ES-1. Summary of Tucson Landfill PV Systems

The results indicate that private ownership of a PV system is currently the most economically 

viable option for the City of Tucson. In the case of a city-owned system, the real levelized cost of 

energy (LCOE) is predicted to be $0.031/kWh above what the city is currently paying for 

electricity. In the case of a privately owned system, both the LCOE and PPA price are predicted 

to be less than the commercial rate, a savings of $0.054/kWh and $0.048/kWh, respectively. The 

difference in price between the two scenarios is due to the federal investment tax credit, which 

the city is unable to capture as a non-tax-paying entity. 

Of the five sites considered in this study, the Harrison, Irvington, and Vincent Mullins Landfills 

are the most feasible sites for a PV installation. These sites already have existing electrical 

infrastructure in place or are adjacent to city-owned facilities that could serve as tie-in locations 

for connecting to the grid. If a PV system is privately owned and designed to solely provide the 

grid with electricity, the Harrison Landfill would accommodate the largest system (9.1 MW). In 

contrast, a PV system on the Vincent Mullins or Irvington Landfill could be used to offset the 

energy consumption of adjacent facilities, but the system size would be limited to 125% of the 

load by Arizona’s net-metering law. 

Scenario Summaries

System Type Array Tilt Real LCOE Savingsa PPA Price

Nominal 

LCOE

(deg) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)

Crystalline Silicon 20.0 0.115 -0.031 - 0.149

Crystalline Silicon 20.0 0.043 0.054 0.048 0.054

System Summaries

Tie-In Location

System 

Size

Annual 

Output

Houses 

Poweredb System Cost

Annual 

O&Mc

(kW) (kWh/year) ($/year)

Flare/Udall Park 4,300 7,285,725 660 $15,717,900 112,580

Flare 9,100 15,418,628 1,397 $33,033,000 236,600

Tucson FD Station 17 1,600 2,710,968 246 $5,808,000 41,600

n/a 4,100 6,946,854 629 $14,883,000 106,600

n/a 6,500 11,013,306 998 $23,595,000 169,000

a

b

c

Number of average American households that could hypothetically be powered by the PV 

system assuming 11,040 kWh/year/household.

Based on average energy charges for Municipal Service (8.4¢/kWh) and General Service (9.6¢/kWh) from 

Tucson Electric Power, not including demand charges. Exact values may differ due to rounding. 

Development Scenario

Municipal Purchase

Private Purchase/PPA

Landfill

Silverbell

Average over 25 year system life/analysis period.

Vincent Mullins

Harrison

Irvington

Ryland
vi 

If the city prefers to utilize the energy generated by a landfill PV system directly, one option 

would be a combined scenario, whereby the city develops a net-metered system to meet the 

needs of onsite and/or nearby facilities, in addition to allowing a third party to develop the rest of 

the site. This option would have the benefit of providing the city with a source of renewable 

energy for its facilities, in addition to providing revenue from production-based incentives and 

lease payments or revenue sharing for use of the site. In this case, the Vincent Mullins Landfill 

would allow for the largest system that could also be tied to a city facility, with the Irvington 

Landfill accommodating a smaller system designed for this purpose. Alternatively, the city could 

arrange to purchase part of the energy from a privately owned system through a PPA or make it 

part of the development agreement. For these scenarios, the tradeoffs between the added costs of 

a city-owned system and the potential revenue from utility incentives and/or the site developer 

will need to be weighed carefully in order to determine which option is best for the City of 

Tucson. 

Tucson’s closed landfills represent an under-utilized resource for renewable energy generation; 

the results of this study indicate that the energy produced from a privately owned utility-scale PV 

system will be cost-competitive with traditional grid-purchased electricity. Installing a PV 

system on one or more of these sites has the potential to add a significant amount of distributed 

generation to the area, contribute to Arizona’s renewable energy standard, offset energy costs, 

and create additional revenue for the City of Tucson. It is recommended that the city further 

pursue a utility-scale PV installation on the Harrison, Irvington, or Vincent Mullins Landfills.

Potential site developers include Tucson Electric Power or other private energy developers and 

the city should solicit proposals and bids from interested parties. 
vii 

Table of Contents

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

2 Development of a PV System on Landfills......................................................................................... 3

3 Proposed Installation Location Information...................................................................................... 6

3.1 Vincent Mullins Landfill PV System............................................................................................... 6

3.2 Additional Landfill PV Systems...................................................................................................... 7

3.3 Utility-Resource Considerations.................................................................................................... 10

3.4 Useable Acreage for Landfill PV Systems in Tucson.................................................................... 10

3.5 PV Site Solar Resource.................................................................................................................. 11

3.6 Tucson Landfill Energy Usage ...................................................................................................... 11

3.6.1 Net Metering ......................................................................................................................... 12

3.6.2 Virtual Net Metering............................................................................................................. 12

4 Economics and Performance............................................................................................................ 13

4.1 Assumptions and Input Data for Analysis ..................................................................................... 13

4.2 SAM Forecasted Economic Performance ...................................................................................... 16

4.3 Job Analysis and Impact ................................................................................................................ 17

5 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................... 19

Appendix A. Provided Site Information .................................................................................................. 21

ADEQ Numbers................................................................................................................................... 21

Appendix B. PV Systems.......................................................................................................................... 22

Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 22

Major System Components .................................................................................................................. 23

PV Module..................................................................................................................................... 23

Inverter........................................................................................................................................... 25

Balance-of-System Components.................................................................................................... 26

Operation and Maintenance.................................................................................................................. 28

Siting Considerations ........................................................................................................................... 28

Appendix C. Results from PVWatts ........................................................................................................ 29

Appendix D. Financing Opportunities .................................................................................................... 32

Owner and Operator Financing ............................................................................................................ 32

Third-Party Developers with Power Purchase Agreements................................................................. 32

Third-Party “Flip” Agreements............................................................................................................ 33

Hybrid Financial Structures.................................................................................................................. 33

Solar Services Agreement and Operating Lease .................................................................................. 33

Sale/Leaseback ..................................................................................................................................... 34

Community Solar/Solar Gardens.......................................................................................................... 34

Appendix E. SAM Results ........................................................................................................................ 35

Appendix F. Results of the JEDI Model .................................................................................................. 36
viii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Aerial view of the 2-MW ground-anchored PV system at U.S. Army Fort Carson, 

financed through a PPA .............................................................................................................4

Figure 2. Ballasted tracking PV system at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada .....................................4

Figure 3. View of the feasible area for PV at the Vincent Mullins Landfill ....................................6

Figure 4. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Vincent Mullins Landfill site ...................7

Figure 5. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Harrison Landfill ......................................8

Figure 6. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Irvington Landfill .....................................8

Figure 7. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Ryland Landfill ........................................9

Figure 8. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Silverbell Landfill ....................................9

Figure 9. Electrical tie-in point at the flare station for the PV system at the Vincent Mullins 

Landfill .....................................................................................................................................10

Figure 10. Solar market insight Q1 2012 national weighted average system prices .....................14

Figure B-1. Generation of electricity from a PV cell .....................................................................22

Figure B-2. Ground-mounted array diagram .................................................................................23

Figure B-3. Mono- and multi-crystalline solar panels ...................................................................24

Figure B-4. Thin-film solar panels installed on solar energy cover (left) and fixed-tilt mounting 

system (middle and right) ........................................................................................................25

Figure B-5. String inverter .............................................................................................................26

List of Tables

Table ES-1. Summary of Tucson Landfill PV Systems ..................................................................v

Table 1. Usable Acreage for Tucson City Landfills ......................................................................11

Table 2. Performance Results for 1-kW PV Systems in Tucson, Arizona ....................................11

Table 3. Installed System Cost Assumptions .................................................................................14

Table 4. SAM Assumptions and Inputs .........................................................................................16

Table 5. Summary of Tucson Landfill PV Systems ......................................................................17

Table 6. JEDI Analysis Assumptions for the Vincent Mullins Landfill ........................................18

Table B-1. Energy Density by Panel and System ..........................................................................27

Table C-1. PVWatts Inputs ............................................................................................................29

Table C-2. Performance Results for 20° Fixed-Tilt PV System ....................................................29

Table C-3. Performance Results for 32.2° (latitude) Fixed-Tilt PV System .................................30

Table C-4. Performance Results for Single-Axis Tracking PV System ........................................30

Table C-5. Performance Results for Single-Axis Tracking PV System ........................................31

Table E-1. SAM Results ................................................................................................................35

Table F-1. Estimated Economic Impact of a PV System at the Vincent Mullins Landfill ............36
ix

List of Acronyms

AC alternating current 

ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality

BOS balance of system

DC direct current

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FTE full-time equivalent 

IOU investor-owned utility 

JEDI Jobs and Economic Development Impact 

kV kilovolt 

kW kilowatt

kWh kilowatt-hour 

LCOE levelized cost of energy 

MW megawatt

MWh megawatt-hour 

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

O&M operations and maintenance 

PBI production-based incentive 

PPA power purchase agreement 

PV photovoltaic 

REC renewable energy certificate

REST renewable energy standard and tariff

SAM System Advisor Model 

TEP Tucson Electric Power

VNM virtual net metering

W watt
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 Vincent Mullins Landfill in Tucson, Arizona, for 

a feasibility study of renewable energy production. Under the RE-Powering America’s 

Land initiative, the EPA provided funding to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

(NREL) to support the study. NREL provided technical assistance for this project but did 

not assess environmental conditions at the site beyond those related to the performance of 

a photovoltaic (PV) system. The purpose of this report is to assess the site for a possible 

PV installation and estimate the cost and performance of different PV configurations, as 

well as to recommend financing options that could assist in the implementation of a PV 

system. In addition to the Vincent Mullins site, four similar landfills in Tucson are 

included as part of this study. 

The feasibility of a PV system depends greatly on both site-specific and economic 

factors. Site-specific factors include the available area for an array, solar resource, 

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

status, ground conditions, and restrictions associated with redevelopment of contaminated 

sites impact the feasibility of a PV system. Economic factors include purchase price of 

the electricity produced, power purchase agreement (PPA) price, and retail electric rates 

along with federal, state, and utility incentives for PV systems. Based on an assessment 

of these factors, the Vincent Mullins Landfill and other landfills in Tucson were found to 

be suitable sites for deployment of utility-scale PV systems. 

The Vincent Mullins property is a closed 52-acre city-owned landfill located in 

northeastern Tucson. The city’s half-million residents are served by Tucson Electric 

Power (TEP), the second-largest investor-owned utility (IOU) in the state. TEP is 

required to comply with the state’s renewable energy standard and tariff (REST) passed 

in 2007, which mandates that IOUs generate or purchase 15% of their annual retail 

energy requirements from renewable sources by 2025. Additionally, 30% of this 

renewable energy requirement must be met with distributed generation. To comply with 

these requirements, TEP currently offers its customers upfront incentives on a dollar-perkilowatt basis and production- or performance-based incentives (PBI) on a dollar-perkilowatt-hour basis under its Renewable Energy Credit Purchase Program. In 2011, TEP 

reported 13.8 MW of PV installations to meet its REST requirement, with annual 

program funds exhausted in the third quarter of that year.1

The site operated as a landfill from 1976 to 1987, receiving only municipal solid waste; it

was officially closed in 2007 by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ).

2

 The parcel is zoned “Suburban Ranch” or low density residential, according to 

the city’s Land Use Code, which allows for renewable energy systems. It is bounded to 

the east by the privately owned and active Speedway Landfill, to the south by an 

apartment complex, to the west by the Pantano Wash, and to the north by the city-owned 

Morris K. Udall Park. The landfill is in a former gravel quarry pit and is approximately 

 

1 Tucson Electric Power 2011 REST Compliance Report. Accessed July 2012: 

http://arizonagoessolar.org/UtilityIncentives/TucsonElectricPower.aspx. 2 See Appendix A for ADEQ information.
2 

40 feet deep, unlined, and has a 6-foot engineered soil cap that is stable and designed to 

minimize erosion and moisture penetration. A landfill gas extraction system controls and 

maintains gas within the site and removes residual contaminants from the waste and soil. 

The system consists of underground pipes that collect the gas and deliver it to a station

along the north boundary where it is currently flared. The City of Tucson maintains 

ownership of the site and monitors cap integrity semi-annually, landfill gas monthly, and 

groundwater semi-annually as part of a 30-year post-closure monitoring cycle. 

The city previously completed a feasibility study in 2008 to evaluate the potential for 

using its landfills to generate electricity.

3

 The Vincent Mullins Landfill was specifically 

identified as a potential site, but the project was delayed due to zoning issues, which were 

later resolved, and then it was put on indefinite hold pending funding. There are no 

restrictions for developing the site; however, any proposed infrastructure must be 

designed for landfill use, not increase leachate or methane production from the landfill, 

and requires approval from ADEQ. Prior PV projects on landfills have shown effective 

designs are attainable and only slightly increase the installed cost of a system. 

Feasibility assessment team members from NREL, the City of Tucson, and the EPA 

conducted a project meeting and site visits on March 7 and 8, 2012, to gather information 

integral to this feasibility study. Site conditions varied slightly between the landfills, but 

in general all five sites were found to be very similar. The team considered information 

including site layout, shading analysis, interconnection points, site topography, and 

ground conditions. The assessment team found conditions well suited for large-scale PV 

installations. Most of the sites are accessible by road, have flat topography, and are free 

of shading from infrastructure or vegetation. Additionally, cap settlement did not appear 

to be an issue given the time since closure and cap depth. 

 

3 Landfill Gas to Energy Feasibility Study for Vincent Mullins and Harrison Landfills, Executive 

Summary, Bryan A. Stirrat and Associates, 2008.
3 

2 Development of a PV System on Landfills

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

benefits for siting PV facilities on landfills,

4 noting that they:

• Can be developed in place of greenfields, limiting the amount of new land that 

becomes disturbed and preserving the carbon storage capacity

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

residential redevelopment and may be adequately zoned for renewable energy 

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

infrastructure

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

cleanup costs or low real estate development demand

• Can provide job opportunities in urban and rural communities 

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

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

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

in many cases generating significant revenue and providing a source of distributed 

renewable energy on a site that would otherwise go unused. The City of Tucson is 

interested in potential revenue flows and electricity generation from the Vincent Mullins 

Landfill as well as its other landfill sites. Often, the local community has significant 

interest in the redevelopment of public lands. Community engagement is critical to match 

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

opportunities studied and realized by other similar sites demonstrates the potential for PV 

system development. 

Although landfills can potentially present unique challenges for installing PV systems, in 

many ways landfills are ideal locations for renewable energy projects, offering a 

productive use of unproductive land. PV systems have been successfully installed on a 

variety of landfill types throughout the country. On landfills where disturbing the waste 

mass is not a concern, traditional ground-anchored systems can be used, such as on the 

Fort Carson Army base near Colorado Springs, Colorado.5 On sites where cap 

disturbance is restricted or undesirable, ballasted systems with above-ground electrical 

conduit can be used, such as on the Nellis Air Force Base near Las Vegas, Nevada.

6 This 

configuration is commonly used for installing PV systems on buildings to minimize roof 

penetrations. For sites that are still in operation, a solar geomembrane system can be used 

as an alternative to traditional capping methods, such as on the Hickory Ridge Landfill 

 

4 See the EPA’s “Best Practices for Siting Solar Photovoltaics on Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 

(DRAFT).” Accessed August 2012: 

http://www.epa.gov/oswercpa/docs/best_practices_siting_solar_photovoltaic.pdf. 5 RE-Powering America’s Land: Siting Renewable Energy on Potentially Contaminated Land and Mine 

Sites. Fort Carson, CO Success Story. http://www.epa.gov/oswercpa/docs/success_fortcarson_co.pdf. 6 RE-Powering America’s Land: Siting Renewable Energy on Potentially Contaminated Land and Mine 

Sites. Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada Success Story (February 2009), 

http://www.epa.gov/oswercpa/docs/success_nellis_nv.pdf. 
4 

near Atlanta, Georgia.7

 Figures 1 and 2 show examples of PV applications on closed

landfills. 

Figure 1. Aerial view of the 2-MW ground-anchored PV system at U.S. Army Fort Carson, 

financed through a PPA

Source: NREL PIX 17394

Figure 2. Ballasted tracking PV system at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada

Source: NREL PIX 15280

 

7 See http://www.hdrinc.com/portfolio/hickory-ridge-landfill-solar-energy-cover for images. 
5 

The Vincent Mullins site has potential to be used for other functions beyond the solar PV 

system proposed in this report. The city has already explored using the landfill gas for 

heating or to generate electricity, and this remains a viable source of renewable energy. 

PV8 was considered the most viable technology for the site because these systems can be 

installed with minimal disturbance of the landfill surface or the viewshed when compared 

to wind power and are capable of generating more energy than landfill gas.

9

 

 

8 For a detailed description of PV systems, see Appendix B. 9 Landfill Gas to Energy Feasibility Study for Vincent Mullins and Harrison Landfills, Executive 

Summary, Bryan A. Stirrat and Associates, 2008.
6 

3 Proposed Installation Location Information

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

March 7 and 8, 2012. 

3.1 Vincent Mullins Landfill PV System

As mentioned in Section 1, the Vincent Mullins Landfill is an excellent site for a largescale PV system. The site has large areas of relatively flat ground and is free of 

obstructions that might add to the cost of construction or cause shading of the system.

Additionally, road access and cap stability would facilitate construction of an array on the 

site. Furthermore, the southwestern United States has the highest available solar resource 

in the country, which makes it a suitable location for solar energy systems. In Tucson, the 

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

location, including direct, diffuse, and ground-reflected radiation—is 6.13 kWh/m2

/day. 

For comparison, Miami, Florida, receives 5.17 kWh/m2

/day, and Seattle, Washington, 

receives 3.67 kWh/ m

2

/day.10 Figure 3 shows a view of the Vincent Mullins Landfill. 

Figure 3. View of the feasible area for PV at the Vincent Mullins Landfill

Photo by Lars Lisell, NREL

From the information collected during the site visit, the team concluded that 90% of the 

feasible area could accommodate a PV system and the remaining 10% would be unusable 

due to roads, topography, or other restrictions. The site has been leveled with a slight 

grade (<2%) to facilitate water runoff, and low growth vegetation (<2 feet tall) has been 

planted to prevent erosion. 

 

10 NREL PVWatts Viewer. Accessed July 2012: http://mapserve3.nrel.gov/PVWatts_Viewer/index.html. 
7 

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

whether the site layout can be improved to better incorporate a PV system. With proper 

forethought, the roads, equipment pads, and panel spacing can be optimized to allow for 

more than 90% of the available area to be utilized to incorporate more PV panels. 

Figure 4 shows an aerial view of the Vincent Mullins Landfill taken from Google Earth; 

the feasible area for PV is shaded in orange with the electrical tie-in point for the PV 

system noted. As shown, there are large expanses of relatively flat, un-shaded land, 

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

feasible for PV is 24.8 acres (1,081,874 ft2).

Figure 4. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Vincent Mullins Landfill site

Illustration made using Google Earth

3.2 Additional Landfill PV Systems

Although the primary focus of this study was the Vincent Mullins Landfill, four 

additional closed landfills owned by the city were evaluated for potential PV systems.

Figures 5–8 show aerial views of the Harrison, Irvington, Ryland, and Silverbell 

Landfills with the approximate feasible area and potential electrical tie-in points shown 

(if available). 
8 

Figure 5. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Harrison Landfill

Illustration made using Google Earth

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

Illustration made using Google Earth
9 

Figure 7. Aerial view of the feasible area for PV at the Ryland Landfill

Illustration made using Google Earth

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

Illustration made using Google Earth
10 

3.3 Utility-Resource Considerations

When considering a ground-mounted system, an electrical tie-in location should be 

identified to determine how the energy would be fed back into the grid. The expected 

electrical tie-in point and inverter location for a PV system at the Vincent Mullins 

Landfill is at the flare station adjacent to and directly north of the site. The flare station 

has a TEP electric meter, and the site has 48-kV transmission lines running along the 

western boundary, both of which were assumed to be compatible with a large-scale PV 

installation needing no additional electrical infrastructure. Before moving forward with a 

PV project at any of the landfill sites, a grid integration study should be conducted in 

order to determine definitively whether or not additional infrastructure would be required. 

The expected electrical tie-in point for the Vincent Mullins site is shown in Figure 9. 

Figure 9. Electrical tie-in point at the flare station for the PV system at the Vincent Mullins

Landfill 

Photo by Lars Lisell, NREL

3.4 Useable Acreage for Landfill PV Systems in Tucson

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

acreage is typically characterized as “flat to gently sloping” with 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 area (e.g., a parking lot or industrial site space), as well as existing 

building rooftops. The total usable acreage for landfill PV systems in Tucson was 

determined to be 148.1 acres. Table 1 lists the usable acreage for the five landfills.
11 

Table 1. Usable Acreage for Tucson City Landfills 

Landfill Potential Acreage Usability Factor Usable Acreage

Vincent Mullins 27.6 0.9 24.8

Harrison 65.9 0.8 52.7

Irvington 10.5 0.9 9.4

Ryland 26.5 0.9 23.8

Silverbell 46.7 0.8 37.4

Total 148.1

3.5 PV Site Solar Resource

The landfills have been evaluated to determine the adequacy of the solar resource 

available using both onsite data and industry tools. The predicted array performance was 

found using PVWatts Version 211 for Tucson, Arizona. For this summary array 

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

estimated production for each kilowatt. It is scaled linearly so that additional analyses can 

be performed to match the proposed system size. Table 2 shows the annual performance 

results of four different system configurations in Tucson, Arizona, as calculated by 

PVWatts. The monthly results for each system type are available in Appendix C. 

Table 2. Performance Results for 1-kW PV Systems in Tucson, Arizona 

System Type AC Energy 

(kWh/yr)

Increase from Fixed 

20° Tilt

Fixed Axis, 20° Tilt 1,592 0.0% 

Fixed Axis, 32° Tilt (latitude) 1,624 2.0% 

Single-Axis Tracking 1,997 25.4% 

Double-Axis Tracking 2,279 43.2%

3.6 Tucson Landfill Energy Usage

It is important to understand the energy use of the site to determine whether or not energy 

produced would need to be sold or if it could offset onsite energy use. Several of the 

landfills in Tucson either consume electricity directly onsite or have city-owned facilities 

close by that could use the energy produced from a PV system. 

The Vincent Mullins Landfill flare consumes approximately 13,200 kWh of energy per 

year and the adjacent Morris K. Udall Park consumes approximately 1,650,000 kWh per 

year. Both meters are on the PS-40 Municipal Service rate schedule with an average cost 

of $0.084/kWh.

12 Together, these two sites would require a PV system of approximately 

1 MW to completely meet electricity needs, with an estimated savings of $139,442/yr. A 

 

11 For additional information about PVWatts, see http://www.nrel.gov/rredc/pvwatts/. 12 Pricing Plan PS-40 Municipal Service, Tucson Electric Power. Accessed July 2012: 

https://www.tep.com/doc/customer/rates/PS-40.pdf. 
12 

more accurate system size could be calculated using annual energy and power data from 

the two facilities, which were not available at the time of this study. 

The Harrison Landfill also has a flare station with an electric meter; a PV system at this 

site could be used to offset onsite energy use as well. The smaller Irvington Landfill does 

not have a flare station or meter, but it is adjacent to a Tucson fire station, which could 

serve as both a tie-in location and electrical load for a PV system. The Ryland and 

Silverbell landfills do not have electrical infrastructure or adjacent city facilities, which 

would make PV installations on these sites more restrictive. 

3.6.1 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:13

(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. 

Arizona’s net-metering law, which took effect in 2009, requires utilities to offer net 

metering to all customers who generate electricity from solar, wind, hydroelectric, 

geothermal, biomass, biogas, combined heat and power (CHP), or fuel cell technologies 

up to 125% of the customer’s total load.14

3.6.2 Virtual Net Metering

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

allow certain entities, such as a local government, to install renewable generation 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. TEP’s 

“Bright Tucson” Community Solar Program allows residential and commercial customers 

to purchase blocks of electricity produced from solar installations in the Tucson 

metropolitan area.

15

 

13 Energy Policy Act of 2005, Title XII—Electricity, Subtitle E—Amendments to PURPA, Section 1251— 

Net Metering and Additional Standards. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ58/pdf/PLAW109publ58.pdf. 14 For the full text of this bill, see: 

http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=AZ24R&re=0&ee=0. 15 Tucson Electrical Power, Bright Tucson Community Solar program. Accessed September 2012: 

https://www.tep.com/Renewable/Business/Bright/. 
13 

4 Economics and Performance

The economics and performance of a PV system at each site was 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. To model PV 

system economic performance, this study used the NREL System Advisor Model 

(SAM).

16 

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 projects that buy

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

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

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

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

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

commercial, and utility projects. 

SAM makes performance predictions for grid-connected solar, small wind, and 

geothermal power systems, and it makes economic estimates for distributed energy and 

central generation projects. The model calculates the cost of generating electricity based 

on information the user provides about a project’s location, installation and operating 

costs, type of financing, applicable tax credits and incentives, and system specifications.

4.1 Assumptions and Input Data for Analysis

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 since 2010, the average cost for utility-scale17 ground-mounted systems 

has declined from $4.80/W in the first quarter (Q1) of 2010 to $2.90/W in Q1 2012. The 

cost for smaller commercial-scale systems has fallen to $4.63/W during the same period 

and is consistent with projects in Tucson, which have shown an average cost of 

$4.32/W.18 With an increasing demand and supply, the potential for further cost 

reduction is expected as market conditions evolve. Figure 10 shows the cost per watt of 

PV systems from 2010 to 2012. 

 

16 For additional information about the NREL Solar Advisor Model, see https://sam.nrel.gov/cost. 17 For a description of PV system sizes, see Appendix B. 18 Tucson Electrical Power Non-Residential Incentive Status. Accessed September 2012: 

https://www.tep.com/doc/renewable/incentive-status-nonres.pdf. 
14 

Figure 10. Solar market insight Q1 2012 national weighted average system prices19

Source: Solar Energy Industries Association

For this analysis, the following input data were used. The installed cost of fixed-tilt 

ground-mounted systems was assumed to be $3.63/W. The increased cost is due to 

limitations placed on design and construction methods due to the ground conditions at the 

site and is estimated to be 25% for a ballasted system. Such limitations include 

restrictions on storm water runoff, weight loading of construction equipment, inability to 

trench for utility lines, additional engineering costs, permitting issues, and non-standard 

ballasted racking systems. The installed system cost assumptions are summarized in

Table 3. 

Table 3. Installed System Cost Assumptions 

Fixed-Tilt ($/Wp)

Baseline system 2.90

With ballast 0.73

Total installed cost 3.63

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

inverter and electrical equipment. 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. For this analysis, the cost of electricity was based 

 

19 Data and figure drawn from the Solar Energy Industries Association “SEIA/GTM Research U.S. Solar 

Market Insight” Q1 2012 Report. See http://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-market-insight-report2012-q1. 
15 

on TEP’s GS-10 General Service and PS-40 Municipal Service rates.20 The annual 

average commercial (general service) and municipal rates were calculated to be 

$0.096/kWh and $0.084/kWh, respectively. 

It is important to consider all applicable incentives or grants to make PV as cost-effective

as possible. If the PV system is owned by a private tax-paying entity, this entity may

qualify for a federal tax credit (30% of the initial capital investment) and accelerated 

depreciation on the PV system over 5 years (15%–35% of the capital investment). The 

total potential tax benefits to the tax-paying entity can be as high as 55% of the initial 

system cost. Because state and federal governments do not pay taxes, private ownership 

of the PV system would be required to capture tax incentives. 

For the purposes of this analysis, two financial scenarios were considered for installing a 

landfill PV system—one where the city develops the site, and one in which a private 

entity is allowed to develop it using a PPA.

21 These scenarios include the current cost of 

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

proposed PV system. 

For each scenario the project is expected to have a 25-year life, although the systems can 

be reasonably expected to continue operation past this point. The panels are assumed to 

have a 0.5% per year degradation in performance. A DC-to-AC system conversion of 

80% was assumed, which includes losses in the inverter, wire losses, PV module losses, 

and losses due to temperature effects. Inflation is assumed to be 2.5% and the loan rate is 

assumed to be 6% for each scenario. The operations and maintenance (O&M) expenses 

are estimated to be $30/kW/yr during the first 15 years, followed by $20/kW/yr for years 

16–25. 

A fixed 20°-tilt system was used as a baseline for evaluating the economics and 

performance of a PV system in Tucson. The exact system design is beyond the scope of 

this study and will depend on additional site-specific analyses and input from 

stakeholders. The PVWatts calculation engine within SAM was used to calculate

expected energy performance for the system. The assumptions and inputs for each

scenario are included in Table 4 with the differences shaded. 

 

20 Tucson Electric Power Pricing Plans. Accessed September 2012: 

https://www.tep.com/Customer/Rates/Pricing/. 21 For a description of financing opportunities, see Appendix D.
16 

Table 4. SAM Assumptions and Inputs 

Parameter Municipal Purchase Private Purchase/PPA

Analysis period (years) 25 25

Inflation 2.5% 2.5%

Real discount rate 3.00% 5.85%

Federal tax rate 0% 35%

State tax rate 0% 7.10%

Insurance (% of installed cost) 0.5% 0.5%

Property tax 0% 0%

Construction loan 0% 0%

Loan term (years) 25 15

Loan rate 6% 6%

Debt fraction 100% 60%

Minimum IRR 15% 15%

PPA escalation rate 1.5% 1.5%

Federal depreciation - Custom 5-year MACRSa

State depreciation - -

Federal ITC - 30.00%

State ITC - 10% up to $50,000

State production tax credit - $0.028/kWhb

Production-based incentives $0.064/kWh for 20 years

Degradation 0.5% 0.5%

Operational availability 100% 100%

Cost - fixed axis per kW $3.63 $3.63

Grid interconnection cost 0 0

O&M $30/kW/yr for years 1-15 & $20/kW/yr for years 16-25

Derate factor 80% 80%

Tilt 20° 20° a Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System

b Arizona Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit, average over 10 years.

4.2 SAM Forecasted Economic Performance

Using the inputs and assumptions summarized in Table 4, the SAM tool predicts the 

LCOE and PPA price for a PV system in Tucson, Arizona. Table 5 summarizes the 

results of the economic analysis for the system configurations and development scenarios 

considered in this study. The complete results for each scenario are available in 

Appendix E. 
17 

Table 5. Summary of Tucson Landfill PV Systems 

The results indicate that private ownership of a PV system is currently the most 

economically viable option for the City of Tucson. In the case of a city-owned system, 

the real LCOE is predicted to be $0.031/kWh above what the city is currently paying for 

electricity. In the case of a privately owned system, both the LCOE and PPA price are 

predicted to be less than the commercial rate, a savings of $0.054/kWh and $0.048/kWh, 

respectively. 

4.3 Job Analysis and Impact

To evaluate the impact on employment and economic impacts of the PV project 

associated with this analysis, the NREL Jobs and Economic Development Impact (JEDI) 

model was used.

22 The JEDI models are tools that estimate 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. 

 

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

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

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

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

Scenario Summaries

System Type Array Tilt Real LCOE Savingsa PPA Price

Nominal 

LCOE

(deg) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)

Crystalline Silicon 20.0 0.115 -0.031 - 0.149

Crystalline Silicon 20.0 0.043 0.054 0.048 0.054

System Summaries

Tie-In Location

System 

Size

Annual 

Output

Houses 

Poweredb System Cost

Annual 

O&Mc

(kW) (kWh/year) ($/year)

Flare/Udall Park 4,300 7,285,725 660 $15,717,900 112,580

Flare 9,100 15,418,628 1,397 $33,033,000 236,600

Tucson FD Station 17 1,600 2,710,968 246 $5,808,000 41,600

n/a 4,100 6,946,854 629 $14,883,000 106,600

n/a 6,500 11,013,306 998 $23,595,000 169,000

a

b

c

Number of average American households that could hypothetically be powered by the PV 

system assuming 11,040 kWh/year/household.

Based on average energy charges for Municipal Service (8.4¢/kWh) and General Service (9.6¢/kWh) from 

Tucson Electric Power, not including demand charges. Exact values may differ due to rounding. 

Development Scenario

Municipal Purchase

Private Purchase/PPA

Landfill

Silverbell

Average over 25 year system life/analysis period.

Vincent Mullins

Harrison

Irvington

Ryland
18 

The JEDI models represent the entire economy, including cross-industry or crosscompany 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 impact. It is important to note 

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

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

the JEDI model results are considered gross estimates as opposed to net estimates. For

this study, the Vincent Mullins Landfill was used as an example of the potential 

economic impact of a utility-scale PV system in Tucson, and Table 6 shows the assumed 

values. 

Table 6. JEDI Analysis Assumptions for the Vincent Mullins Landfill 

Input Assumed Value

Capacity 4,300 kW

Year Placed In Service 2013

Installed System Cost $3,630/kWDC

Location Tucson, AZ

Using these inputs, the JEDI tool estimates the gross direct, indirect, and induced jobs, 

associated earnings, and total economic impact supported by the construction and 

continued operation of the proposed PV system. 

The estimates of jobs associated with this project are presented as either 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 model analysis provided in Appendix F, the total 

proposed system is estimated to support 131 direct, indirect, and induced jobs per year for 

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

during the construction period are estimated to be $5,502,100, and total economic output 

is estimated to be $13,811,900. The annual O&M of the new PV system is estimated to 

support 1.7 FTEs per year for the life of the system. The jobs and associated spending are 

projected to account for approximately $92,800 in earnings and $160,500 in economic 

activity each year for the next 25 years. Estimates for the other landfills would either be 

higher or lower depending on the system size relative to Vincent Mullins. 

 
19 

5 Conclusions and Recommendations 

Tucson, Arizona, is a suitable location to implement utility-scale PV systems with a 

higher-than-average solar resource, strong incentives, and readily available land area. 

Installing a PV system at one or more of the landfills considered in this study would be a 

productive use of under-utilized contaminated land and minimize the impacts of 

developing sites elsewhere. Additionally, a landfill PV system would create a significant 

distributed generation facility for the area capable of providing 1 MW or more of 

renewable energy, contributing considerably to Arizona’s REST. 

Based on the findings of this study, utility-scale PV systems are both technically and 

economically feasible for the landfill sites in Tucson. The results indicate that private 

ownership of a PV system will be the most economically attractive development 

scenario, with a PPA price and LCOE below the current commercial electric rate. 

Although all five landfills are suitable for large PV installations, the most feasible sites 

are the Irvington, Harrison, and Vincent Mullins Landfills. These properties already have 

existing electrical infrastructure in place or are adjacent to city-owned facilities, any of 

which could serve as a tie-in location for connecting to the grid. If the PV system is 

privately owned and designed to solely provide the grid with electricity, the Harrison 

Landfill would accommodate the largest PV installation (9.1 MW). In contrast, a PV 

system on the Vincent Mullins or Irvington Landfills could be used to offset the energy 

consumption of adjacent facilities, but the system size would be limited to 125% of the 

load by Arizona’s net-metering law. 

If the city prefers to utilize the energy generated by a landfill PV system directly, one 

possible alternative to the two financial scenarios evaluated in this study may be a 

combined scenario, whereby the city develops a net-metered system to meet the needs of 

onsite and/or nearby facilities, in addition to allowing a third party to develop the rest of 

the site through land use agreements.

23 This option would have the benefit of providing 

the city with a source of renewable energy for its facilities, in addition to providing 

revenue from production-based incentives for excess generation and lease payments or 

revenue-sharing arrangements for use of the site. In this case the Vincent Mullins Landfill 

would allow for the largest system that could also be tied to a city facility, with the 

Irvington Landfill accommodating a smaller system designed for this purpose. 

Alternatively, the city could arrange to purchase part of the energy from a privately 

owned system through a PPA or make it part of the development agreement. For these 

scenarios, the added cost of electricity generated by a city-owned PV system could 

potentially be offset by the combined revenue from utility incentives and a private

developer and is an option that warrants further investigation. 

It is recommended that the City of Tucson pursue opportunities for PV installations on 

the Harrison, Irvington, or Vincent Mullins Landfills. Both ballasted and groundanchored systems with shallow footings are recommended mounting configurations, 

depending on the specific environmental conditions of the site. When reviewing 

 

23 For a list of resources and sample contract documents for setting up PPAs and land use agreements, see 

the Federal Energy Management Program website. Accessed October 2012: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/financing/power_purchase_agreements.html. 
20 

proposals for a PV system, evaluation criteria should include the annual output (kWh/yr) 

as well as price per kilowatt-hour. Tradeoffs between tilt angle, self-shading, tracking 

configuration, and annual output should be evaluated carefully to maximize production of 

the system. A design-build contract can enable vendors to optimize system configuration, 

including tilt angle, tracking requirements, or module specifications, among others. 

Proposals and bids from potential site developers, such as TEP and other private energy 

companies, should be solicited through a process dictated by the appropriate city

procedures. 

Tucson’s closed landfills represent an under-utilized resource for renewable energy 

generation and the results of this study indicate that the energy produced from a privately

owned utility-scale PV system will be cost-competitive with traditional grid-purchased 

electricity. Furthermore, installing a PV system on one or more of these sites has the 

potential to add a significant amount of distributed generation to the area, contribute to 

Arizona’s REST, offset energy costs, and create additional revenue for the City

of Tucson. 
21 

Appendix A. Provided Site Information

ADEQ Numbers

Vincent Mullins Landfill: APP No. P-100917 

Harrison Landfill: Master Plan Facility No. 10019200.03 

Irvington Landfill: APP No. 50044800. 
22 

Appendix B. PV Systems

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 stimulated

electrons (negative charges) in a layer in the cell designed to lose 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., as in a light bulb). 

Figure B-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 DC electricity 

generated by the array is then converted by an inverter to useable AC that can be 

consumed by adjoining buildings and facilities or exported to the electricity grid. PV 

system size varies; a system can be small residential (2–10 kW), commercial (100–500 

kW), or 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
23 

Major System Components

Figure B-2. Ground-mounted array diagram

Source: NREL

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

• PV modules

• Inverter 

• Transformer

• Balance-of-system (BOS) components. 

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

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. 

Crystalline Silicon

Traditional solar cells are made from silicon, which is abundant and nontoxic. It builds on 

a strong industry on both supply (silicon industry) and product side. This technology has 

been demonstrated for a consistent and high efficiency over 30 years in the field. The 

performance degradation, a reduction in power generation due to long-term exposure, is 
24 

under 1% per year. Silicon modules have a lifespan in the 25- to 30-year range but can 

keep producing energy beyond this range. 

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

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

This range of efficiencies represents significant variation among the crystalline silicon 

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

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

manufacturing technique. Crystalline silicon panels are widely used based on 

deployments worldwide. 

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

installed on tracking mounting systems. 

Source: SunPower, NREL PIX 23816 Source: NREL PIX 13823

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

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 their unique nature, some thin-film cells are constructed 

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

as geomembrane systems. 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 less than for crystalline cells. Current 

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

CdTe. Figure B-4 shows thin-film solar panels.

 
25 

Source: NREL PIX 18068 Source: NREL PIX 14726 Source: NREL PIX 17395

Figure B-4. Thin-film solar panels installed on solar energy cover (left) and fixed-tilt 

mounting system (middle and right)

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.

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 may 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. They also have high efficiency and 

lower 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 on inverters are 

typically 10 years. 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 

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

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

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

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

typically benefit from micro-inverters. 
26 

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

the entire array production. However, if micro-inverters are used, it impacts only that 

shaded panel and not the entire array production. Figure B-5 shows a string inverter.

Figure B-5. String inverter 

Source: NREL PIX 07985

Balance-of-System Components

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

components, which include: 

• Mounting racks and hardware for the panels 

• Wiring for electrical connections. 

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. 

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 landfill applications, mounting system designs will be primarily 

driven by these considerations, coupled with settlement concerns and ground penetration 

restrictions. 

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

mounting structures consist of panels installed at a set angle to increase exposure to solar 

radiation throughout the year, typically based on site latitude and wind conditions. Fixedtilt systems are used at many landfill sites. They 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, where PV is rotated on a single axis, can increase energy 
27 

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. 

Table B-1. Energy Density by Panel and System 

System Type Fixed-Tilt Energy 

Density (DC-Watts/ft2

) 

Single-Axis Tracking 

Energy Density

(DC-Watts/ft

2

)

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 colder regions. 

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 landfill 

applications, this wiring may 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. 

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. 
28 

Collection of this basic information is standard for solar systems and it is 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 may also use this data to identify, for example, required 

maintenance, shade on panels, and accumulating dirt on panels. 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. 

Operation and Maintenance

The PV panels typically have a 25-year performance warranty. The inverters, which 

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

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

analysis uses an annual O&M cost computed as $30/kW/yr for the first 15 years and 

$20/kW/yr for the remaining 10 years, which is based on the historical O&M costs of 

installed fixed-axis grid-tied PV systems in addition to amortized cost of inverter 

replacement.

Siting Considerations

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

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 collectively

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 the determination that a site is adequate for a solar installation, an analysis must 

be conducted in order to determine the ideal system size. System size depends highly on 

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

policy. 

The low growth vegetation coupled with the flat topography and the large open areas at 

the Tucson landfills resulted in very little shading at the locations for this study. All of 

the areas investigated resulted in solar access measurements of 96% or higher. The 

shading at these sites will have a negligible impact on the performance of the proposed 

systems. 
29 

Appendix C. Results from PVWatts

Table C-1. PVWatts Inputs

Station Identification

Cell ID 0186375

State Arizona

Latitude 32.2 N 

Longitude -110.8 W

PV System Specifications

DC Rating 1.0 kW

DC to AC Derate Factor 0.8 

AC Rating 0.8 kW

Array Type *varied* 

Array Tilt *varied*

Array Azimuth 180°

Energy Specifications

Cost of Electricity $0.084/kWh

Table C-2. Performance Results for 20° Fixed-Tilt PV System 

Month Solar Radiation AC Energy Energy Value

(kWh/m2/day) (kWh) ($)

1 4.77 112 9.41

2 5.35 111 9.32

3 6.35 145 12.18

4 7.19 155 13.02

5 7.39 159 13.36

6 7.41 150 12.60

7 6.71 141 11.84

8 6.30 134 11.26

9 6.50 135 11.34

10 5.90 131 11.00

11 5.24 117 9.83

12 4.38 103 8.65

Year 6.13 1,592 133.73
30 

Table C-3. Performance Results for 32.2° (latitude) Fixed-Tilt PV System 

Month Solar Radiation AC Energy Energy Value

(kWh/m2/day) (kWh) ($)

1 5.37 126 10.58

2 5.79 120 10.08

3 6.56 150 12.60

4 7.07 153 12.85

5 6.95 150 12.60

6 6.84 139 11.68

7 6.28 132 11.09

8 6.12 130 10.92

9 6.62 138 11.59

10 6.31 139 11.68

11 5.85 130 10.92

12 4.97 117 9.83

Year 6.23 1,624 136.42

 

Table C-4. Performance Results for Single-Axis Tracking PV System 

Month Solar Radiation AC Energy Energy Value

(kWh/m2/day) (kWh) ($)

1 4.97 121 10.16

2 5.96 128 10.75

3 7.70 180 15.12

4 9.35 206 17.30

5 10.25 224 18.82

6 10.43 215 18.06

7 8.79 188 15.79

8 8.13 176 14.78

9 8.00 170 14.28

10 6.83 156 13.10

11 5.52 126 10.58

12 4.41 106 8.90

Year 7.53 1,997 167.75
31 

Table C-5. Performance Results for Single-Axis Tracking PV System 

Month Solar Radiation AC Energy Energy Value

(kWh/m2/day) (kWh) ($)

1 7.08 167 14.03

2 7.54 158 13.27

3 8.79 202 16.97

4 10.00 219 18.40

5 10.70 234 19.66

6 10.83 224 18.82

7 9.05 193 16.21

8 8.54 184 15.46

9 8.90 187 15.71

10 8.38 187 15.71

11 7.64 170 14.28

12 6.50 153 12.85

Year 8.66 2,279 191.44
32 

Appendix D. Financing Opportunities

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

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

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 owner/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; 

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’/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 programs, 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 taxexempt entities, public entities are unable to benefit directly from the various tax-creditbased incentives available to private companies. This has given way to the now common 

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

Third-Party Developers with Power Purchase Agreements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

transaction. 

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

the PPA or via 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 (lower PPA price, higher lease payment) while not directly 

receiving them. The term of a PPA typically varies from 20–25 years. 
33 

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). Next, the site host would have the option to buy out 

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

investor’s remaining interest. 

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

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

would flip to the developer once investors’ return is met. 

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. 

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 to 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 forprofit entities when the for-profit entities capture tax incentives. A number of business 

models have emerged as a way to address to this issue. 

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

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

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

credit, or may purchase the services in annual installments. The municipality may buyout 

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

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

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

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

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

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

equipment capital lease) and a complex business model called a “sale/leaseback.” Under 

the sale/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 
34 

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

absorbed by the tax equity investor, the municipality may purchase the solar project at 

fair market value.

Sale/Leaseback

In this widely accepted model, the public or private entity would install the PV system, 

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

for operating and maintaining the solar system as well as have the right to sell or use the 

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

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

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

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

are exhausted. 

Community Solar/Solar Gardens 

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

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

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

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

owned or sponsored by a local utility. 

Community solar gardens are distributed solar projects wherein utility customers have a 

stake via a 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 sites, or do not want to install solar systems on their 

facilities. Customer pro-rated shares of solar projects are acquired through a long-term 

transferrable lease of one or more panels or through subscription to a share of the project 

in terms of a specific level of energy output or a set amount of energy output capacity. 

Under the customer lease option, customers receive billing credits for the number of 

kilowatt-hours their pro-rated shares of the solar project produces each month; it is also 

known as VNM. Under the customer subscription option, 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 from 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 may be a joint venture between the utility and a third-party developer 

leading to eventual utility ownership 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 (production incentive) and Utah (state income tax credit). Community solar 

is known as “Solar Gardens” in some locations (e.g., Colorado). 
35 

Appendix E. SAM Results 

Table E-1. SAM Results 

Municipal Purchase Private Purchase/PPA

Net Annual Energy site specific Net Annual Energy site specific

LCOE Nominal 14.92 ¢/kWh PPA Price 4.75 ¢/kWh

LCOE Real 11.48 ¢/kWh LCOE Nominal 5.36 ¢/kWh

First-Year Revenue Without System $0 LCOE Real 4.25 ¢/kWh

First-Year Revenue With System $0 After-Tax IRR 0%

First-Year Net Revenue $0 Pre-Tax Min DSCR 0.15

After-Tax NPV site specific After-Tax NPV site specific

Payback Period 15 PPA Price Escalation 1.5%

Capacity Factor 19.3 Debt Fraction 63%

First Year kWhDC/kWAC 1,694 Capacity Factor 19.3

First Year kWhDC/kWAC 1,694
36 

Appendix F. Results of the JEDI Model

Table F-1. Estimated Economic Impact of a PV System at the Vincent Mullins Landfill

Photovoltaic - Project Data Summary Based on Model Default Values

Project Location Arizona 

Year of Construction or Installation 2013

Average System Size - DC Nameplate Capacity (kW) 4,300

Number of Systems Installed 1

Total Project Size - DC Nameplate Capacity (kW) 4,300

System Application Utility

Solar Cell/Module Material

Crystalline 

Silicon

System Tracking Fixed Mount

Base Installed System Cost ($/kW DC) $3,630

Annual Direct O&M Cost ($/kW) $26.00

Money Value - Current or Constant (Dollar Year) 2012

Project Construction or Installation Cost $15,609,000

 Local Spending $7,209,558

Total Annual Operational Expenses $1,922,444

 Direct Operating and Maintenance Costs $111,800

 Local Spending $102,856

 Other Annual Costs $1,810,644

 Local Spending $0

 Debt Payments $0

 Property Taxes $0

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 22.0 $1,422.30

 Construction and Installation Related Services 33.9 $1,149.80

 Subtotal 55.9 $2,572.10 $4,335.60

 Module and Supply Chain Impacts

 Manufacturing 0.0 $0.0 $0.0

 Trade (Wholesale and Retail) 5.2 $292.10 $848.10

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

 Professional Services 9.2 $364.70 $1,213.40

 Other Services 14.1 $924.60 $3,001.50

 Other Sectors 15.0 $167.80 $515.60

 Subtotal 43.5 $1,749.20 $5,578.50

 Induced Impacts 31.8 $1,180.80 $3,897.80

 Total Impacts 131.3 $5,502.10 $13,811.90
37 

Annual Annual

Annual Earnings Output

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

 Onsite Labor Impacts

 PV Project Labor Only 1.0 $62.30 $62.30

 Local Revenue and Supply Chain Impacts 0.4 $18.90 $60.10

 Induced Impacts 0.3 $11.60 $38.10

 Total Impacts 1.7 $92.80 $160.50

Notes: 

*Earnings and output values are thousands of dollars in year 2012 dollars. 

*Construction and operating period jobs are full-time equivalent for one year (1 FTE = 2,080 hours). 

*Economic impacts "During operating years" represent impacts that occur from system/plant 

operations/expenditures.

* Totals may not add up due to independent rounding. 

Detailed PV Project Data Costs

Purchased Manufactured

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

Materials & Equipment

 Mounting (rails, clamps, fittings, etc.) $569,226 100% N

 Modules $6,251,493 100% N

 Electrical (wire, connectors, breakers, etc.) $649,014 100% N

 Inverter $929,709 100% N

 Subtotal $8,399,442

Labor

 Installation $1,422,264 100%

 Subtotal $1,422,264

Subtotal $9,821,706

Other Costs

 Permitting $65,721 100%

 Other Costs $1,452,432 100%

 Business Overhead $4,269,141 100%

 Subtotal $5,787,294

Subtotal $15,609,000

Sales Tax (Materials & equipment purchases) $0 100%

Total $15,609,000

PV System Annual O&M Costs Cost Local Share

Labor

 Technicians $67,080 100%

 Subtotal $67,080

Materials and Services
38 

 Materials & Equipment $44,720 100%

 Services $0 100%

 Subtotal $44,720

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

Average Annual Payment (Interest and Principal) $1,810,644 0%

Property Taxes $0 100%

Total $1,922,444

Other Parameters

Financial Parameters

Debt Financing

 Percentage Financed 80% 0%

 Years Financed (term) 10

 Interest Rate 10%

Tax Parameters

 Local Property Tax (percent of taxable value) 0%

 Assessed Value (percent of construction cost) 0%

 Taxable Value (percent of assessed value) 0%

 Taxable Value $0

 Property Tax Exemption (percent of local taxes) 100%

 Local Property Taxes $0 100%

 Local Sales Tax Rate 6.60% 100%

 Sales Tax Exemption (percent of local taxes) 100.00%

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%