Technical Report

NREL/TP-6A2-48594

August 2010

Feasibility Study of Economics 

and Performance of Solar 

Photovoltaics in Nitro, 

West Virginia

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

Lars Lisell and Gail Mosey
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

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

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

Contract No. DE-AC36-08-GO28308

Technical Report

NREL/TP-6A2-48594

August 2010

Feasibility Study of Economics 

and Performance of Solar 

Photovoltaics in Nitro, 

West Virginia

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

Lars Lisell and Gail Mosey

Prepared under Task No. WFD3.1000
NOTICE

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

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

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

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not 

infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by 

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

recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and 

opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States 

government or any agency thereof.

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

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

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

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

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
iii 

Executive Summary 

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

America’s Land initiative, selected the Nitro, West Virginia area for a feasibility study of 

renewables on several brownfield sites. Citizens of Nitro, city planners, and site managers are 

interested in redevelopment uses for brownfields in Nitro, and the site is particularly well suited 

for solar photovoltaic (PV) installation. The purpose of this report is to assess the sites 

designated by the City of Nitro for possible solar PV installation and to estimate the cost, 

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

crystalline silicon (single-axis tracking), and thin film (fixed-tilt). Each option represents a 

standalone system that can be sized to use an entire available site area. In addition, the report 

outlines financing options that could assist in the implementation of a system. 

Eight sites in or near Nitro were considered, all of which were found suitable for PV systems. 

The economics of the potential systems were analyzed using an electric rate of $0.08/kWh, as 

well as incentives that are offered by the State of West Virginia and by the serving utility, 

American Electric Power (AEP). Currently, no incentives are offered for commercial size solar 

power systems in West Virginia, or by AEP. Table ES-1 summarizes the system performance 

and economics of a potential system that would use all available areas that were surveyed in 

Nitro. It should be noted that not all sites would need to be developed; beginning with a smaller 

demonstration system and increasing capacity as funds become available may make more sense. 

Calculations for this analysis assume the 30% federal tax credit incentive would be captured for 

the system. 

If the electrical rate increases 43% over the next three years as anticipated, the cost of electricity 

would increase from $0.08/kWh to $0.123/kWh. A rate increase of this magnitude would greatly 

improve the economics of a solar PV generation plant. Table ES-1 also summarizes the system 

economics with the anticipated rate increase information and job creation estimates if the Nitro 

location were used for PV. 
iv 

Table ES-1. PV System Performance and Economics by System Type, including Job Creation Estim

Annual Cost Savings 

($/year) 

Payback Period 

(years) 

Array Tilt (Deg) 

PV System Size (kW) 

Annual Output (kWh/year) 

With Incentive 

With Rate Increase 

Annual O&M ($/year) 

System Cost with Incentives ($) 

With Incentive 

With Rate Increase 

Crystalline Silicon (Fixed-Tilt)

38.4 27,600 31,408,800 $2,512,700 $3,862,654 $234,600 $96,600,000 42 27 Crystalline Silicon (Single-Axis Tracking)0 22,600 29,380,000 $2,350,400 $3,613,152 $474,600 $94,920,000 51 30 Thin Film (Fixed-Tilt)38.4 11,550 13,143,900 $1,051,510 $1,616,437 $86,394 $35,574,000 37 23 a Data assume a maximum usable area of 6,957,397 ft2. b Job-years created as a result of project capital investment including direct, indirect and induced jobs. c Jobs (direct, indirect and induced) sustained as a result of operations and maintenance (O&M) of the system.
v 

Table of Contents 

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ vi

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................. vii

1 Study Location ...................................................................................................................................... 1

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

2.1 Types of PV Systems ...........................................................................................................3

2.2 PV System Components ......................................................................................................4

2.3 PV Size and Performance ....................................................................................................5

3 PV Site Locations ................................................................................................................................. 6

3.1 Capped Landfill ...................................................................................................................6

3.2 Partially Capped North Site .................................................................................................7

3.3 Large Uncapped Field of Slabs ............................................................................................9

3.4 Temporarily Capped Landfill ............................................................................................11

3.5 Temporarily Capped Small Parcel .....................................................................................13

3.6 Temporarily Capped Small Landfill ..................................................................................15

3.7 Partially Demolished Site ..................................................................................................17

3.8 AC&S Chemical Site .........................................................................................................19

3.9 Total Site Summary ...........................................................................................................21

4 Economics and Performance of Grid-Tied PV ................................................................................. 22

4.1 Assumptions and Input Data for Analysis .........................................................................22

4.2 Incentives and Financing Opportunities ............................................................................23

4.3 Job Creation .......................................................................................................................24

5 Potential Rate Increases .................................................................................................................... 26

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

Appendix A. Assumptions for Calculations ........................................................................................... 28

Appendix B. Renewable Energy Incentives ........................................................................................... 30
vi 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Major components of grid-connected photovoltaic system............................................. 2

Figure 2. Kanawha River capped landfill: Recommended PV system placement ......................... 6

Figure 3. Partially capped north site: Recommended PV system placement ................................. 8

Figure 4. Partially capped north site: Ground view of recommended PV array site ...................... 9

Figure 5. Large uncapped field of slabs: Recommended PV system placement .......................... 10

Figure 6. Large uncapped field of slabs: Ground view of recommended PV array site ............... 11

Figure 7. Temporarily capped landfill: Recommended PV system placement ............................ 12

Figure 8. Temporarily capped landfill: Ground view of recommended PV array site ................. 13

Figure 9. Temporarily capped small parcel: Recommended PV system placement ..................... 14

Figure 10. Temporarily capped small parcel: Ground view of recommended PV array site ....... 15

Figure 11. Temporarily capped small landfill: Recommended PV system placement ................. 16

Figure 12. Temporarily capped small landfill: Ground view of recommended PV array site ...... 17

Figure 13. Partially demolished site: Recommended PV system placement ................................ 18

Figure 14. Partially demolished site: Ground view of recommended PV array site ..................... 19

Figure 15. AC&S Chemical Site: Recommended PV system placement ..................................... 20

Figure 16. AC&S Chemical Site: Ground view of recommended PV array site .......................... 21

Figure 17. Average installation cost for grid-tied U.S. PV systems, 2008 ................................... 22
vii 

List of Tables 

Table ES-1. PV System Performance and Economics by System Type, including Job 

Creation ...................................................................................................................... iv 

Table 1. Energy Density by Panel and System ................................................................................3 

Table 2. Capped Landfill System Options .......................................................................................7 

Table 3. Partially Capped North Site System Options .....................................................................8 

Table 4. Large Uncapped Field of Slabs System Options .............................................................10 

Table 5. Temporarily Capped Landfill System Options ................................................................12 

Table 6. Temporarily Capped Small Parcel System Options ........................................................14 

Table 7. Temporarily Capped Small Landfill System Options ......................................................16 

Table 8. Partially Demolished Site System Options ......................................................................18 

Table 9. AC&S Chemical System Options ....................................................................................20 

Table 10. PV System Performance and Economics by System Type ............................................21 

Table 11. Estimated Job Creation by PV System Type .................................................................25 

Table 12. PV System Performance and Economics with Anticipated Rate Increase ....................26 

Table 13. Hypothetical Rate Increase Scenarios ............................................................................26 

Table A-1. Assumptions for Calculations ......................................................................................28 

Table A-2. Other Assumptions, including Assumptions for Costs and System Types .................29 

Table B-1. Brownfield Redevelopment and Renewable Energy Incentives and Financing 

Tools ............................................................................................................................30 

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

Photovoltaics ................................................................................................................30 

Table B-3. State Rebates for Commercial-Sector PV Projects ......................................................31 

Table B-4. State Tax Credits for Commercial-Sector PV Projects ................................................35 

Table B-5. U.S. Department of Energy Brightfields Program Grantsa .........................................41 

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

Colorado .......................................................................................................................43 

Table B-7. Key Policy Comparison for Subject States ..................................................................45
1 

1 Study Location 

The City of Nitro, West Virginia—the former site of multiple chemical manufacturing facilities 

is located outside of Charleston on the Kanawha River, with river access, rail access, and utility 

service to all parts of the sites identified for the solar feasibility study. Most of the chemical 

manufacturing companies have left the area, vacating facilities and leaving behind 

“brownfields.” 1 Several studies are in progress to determine the extent of contamination and 

redevelopment potential of the brownfield sites. Some of them have been cleared of buildings 

and equipment, while others still have a significant amount of deserted on-site infrastructure. 

Several owners of the sites have been identified, and they hold liability for site cleanup. These 

companies have been cooperative with clean up and redevelopment efforts in varying degrees, 

depending on the contamination level of the site, the cost of contamination mitigation, and the 

proposed reuse of the site. The sites visited by the NREL assessment team on December 12, 

2009 have been designated as brownfield sites by the EPA. The eight sites identified during the 

site visit as areas of interest for the feasibility study are discussed below in Section 3. Some of 

these sites are scheduled to be permanently capped, although the timeline for capping is 

indefinite. 

 

1

 According to the EPA Web site, brownfields are “real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which 

may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.” For 

more information, see http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/.
2 

2 PV Systems 

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

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

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

mounting locations. PV systems work very well in Nitro, West Virginia, where the average 

global horizontal annual solar resource is 4.35-4.9 kWh/m2/day. This number, however, is not 

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

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

azimuth of the collector, the temperature, the level of sunlight and weather conditions. An 

inverter is required to convert the direct current (DC) to alternating current (AC) of the desired 

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

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

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

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

components are interconnected in a grid-connected PV system. 

Figure 1. Major components of grid-connected photovoltaic system 

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

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

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

collect the high-energy beam radiation from the sun. If an individual cell were shaded, it would 

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

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

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

assessment, the NREL assessment team used a Solmetric solar path calculator to assess shading 

at particular locations by analyzing the sky view where the solar panels would be located. 

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

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

Providing more power than a site would use is generally not advisable due to the economics of 
3 

most net-metering agreements. In the case of the assessed sites, all of the electricity generated at 

the site would be sold to the serving utility, American Electric Power (AEP), because there is no 

electrical load. The system size would thus be determined by the amount of electricity the 

electric company would be willing to purchase, or by how much land area is available. For the 

purposes of this report, the NREL assessment team assumed AEP would purchase any electricity 

that the site can generate. The systems will be broken down by site so the system size can be 

adjusted based on what the utility requests. 

2.1 Types of PV Systems 

Ground-mounted Systems 

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

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

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

system. 

Table 1. Energy Density by Panel and System 

System Type Fixed-Tilt Energy Density 

(DC-Watts/Sq. Ft) 

Single-Axis Tracking 

Energy Density 

(DC-Watts/ Ft.2

) 

Crystalline Silicon 4 3.3 

Thin Film 1.7 1.4 

Hybrid HE* 4.8 3.9 

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

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

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

a large-scale solar generation plant. 

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

with a tilt of 38.4 degrees. To get the most out of the available ground area, considering whether 

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

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

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

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

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

considered. 

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

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

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

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

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

per capacity than can a fixed-tilt tracking system. The drawbacks include increased operations 

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

($/DC-Watt). 
4 

Roof-mounted Systems 

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

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

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

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

sloped roof, a typical flush-mounted crystalline silicon panel can achieve power densities on the 

order of 11 DC-Watt/ft2. For buildings with flat roofs, rack-mounted systems can achieve power 

densities on the order of 8 DC-Watt/ft2 with a crystalline silicon panel. 

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

years of life left. Because no roof area is available on the sites studied no roof-mounted analysis 

was conducted. 

2.2 PV System Components 

The PV system considered here has these components: 

• PV arrays, which convert light energy to DC electricity 

• Inverters, which convert DC to alternating current and provide important safety, 

monitoring and control functions 

• Various wiring, mounting hardware, and combiner boxes 

• Monitoring equipment 

PV Array 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

temperatures, severe winds and impacts. ASTM E1038-052

 subjects modules to impacts from 

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

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

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

accounts for approximately two-thirds the cost of a grid-connected system. A large choice of PV 

manufacturers is available.3

 

 

2

 ASTM Standard E1038, 2005, "Standard Test Method for Determining Resistance of Photovoltaic Modules to Hail 

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

http://www.astm.org/Standards/E1038.htm

3

 Go Solar California, a joint effort of the California Energy Commission and the California Public Utilities 

Commission, provides consumer information for solar energy systems. See http://www.gosolarcalifornia.org/

equipment/pvmodule.php. 
5 

Inverters 

PV arrays provide direct current power at a voltage that depends on the configuration of the 

array. This power is converted to alternating current at the required voltage and number of 

phases by the inverter. Inverters enable the operation of commonly used equipment such as 

appliances, computers, office equipment and motors. Current inverter technology provides true 

sine wave power at a quality often better than that of the serving utility. The locations of both the 

inverter and the balance of the system equipment are important. Inverters are available that 

include most or all of the control systems required for operation, including some metering and 

data-logging capability. Inverters must provide several operational and safety functions for 

interconnection with the utility system. The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc 

(IEEE) maintains standard “P929 Recommended Practice for Utility Interface of Photovoltaic 

(PV) Systems,”

4

 which allows manufacturers to write “Utility-Interactive” on the listing label if 

an inverter meets the requirements of frequency and voltage limits, power quality, and nonislanding inverter testing. Underwriters Laboratory maintains “UL Standard 1741, Standard for 

Static Inverters and Charge Controllers for Use in Photovoltaic Power Systems,”5

 which 

incorporates the testing required by IEEE 929 and includes design (type) testing and production 

testing. A large choice of inverter manufacturers is available.6

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) 

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

with a five-year or ten-year warranty (extended warranties available), would be expected to last 

10-15 years. System performance should be verified on a vendor provided web site. Wire and 

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

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

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

on existing single-axis tracking systems O&M. 

2.3 PV Size and Performance 

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

have an expected life of at least 25 years. For this assessment, the predicted array performance 

was found using PVWatts TM –a performance calculator for grid-connected PV systems created 

by NREL’s Renewable Resource Data Center.7

 The performance data was used to calculate the 

amount of revenue could be expected each year. The project economics were based on this 

analysis and the calculations can be found in Appendix A. 

 

4 ANSI/IEEE Std 929-1988 IEEE Recommended Practice for Utility Interface of Residential and Intermediate 

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

1988_desc.html) 5

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

Resources: UL 1741 (http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/1741.html) 6

 Go Solar California approves inverters. 

7 http://www.nrel.gov/rredc/pvwatts/
6 

3 PV Site Locations 

This section summarizes the findings of the NREL solar assessment site visit on December 12, 

2009. All proposed system locations are shaded in blue in the figures. 

3.1 Capped Landfill 

The capped landfill site is located on the Kanawha River, adjacent to other sites that were 

examined during the site visit. This is the only site that has been fully and permanently capped. 

The cap on this site is built up 6 or 7 feet above grade. The site occupies 23.5 acres, according to 

measurements taken using Google Earth. The site is for sale and may be available for lease. 

Construction could start on this site immediately. This site would need to have a ballast-mounted 

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

mowed at the time of the site visit. A row of trees about 50’ high on the west edge along the river 

would require the solar array to be located approximately 50’ from the west tree line. Otherwise, 

the site has no shading obstructions and would have 100% solar access. This site should be 

considered for a solar energy system. Electrical tie-ins exist at the building site in the northwest 

corner of the site, and electrical lines run along the north and south borders of the site. Assuming 

the usability percentage of the site to be 90%, the available area is 920,150 square feet (21.1 

acres). Table 2 outlines the PV system possibilities. The three options outline the three possible 

types of solar technology that could potentially be used. Each option is sized to use all available 

area outlined in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Kanawha River capped landfill: Recommended PV system placement 

Base image courtesy of Google Earth 
7 

Table 2. Capped Landfill System Options 

System Type Potential System 

Size (kW) 

Annual Energy 

Output (kWh) 

Annual Cost 

Savings ($) 

Annual 

O&M ($) 

System 

Cost ($) 

Crystalline Silicon—

Fixed-Tilt 

3,600 4,096,800 327,744 30,600 12,600,000 

Crystalline Silicon—

Single-Axis Tracking 

3,000 3,900,000 312,000 63,000 12,600,000 

Thin Film Fixed-Tilt 1,500 1,707,000 136,560 11,220 4,620,000 

3.2 Partially Capped North Site 

The partially capped site is located on the north side of U.S. Interstate Highway 64. This site has 

been partially capped. Because this site—owned by Solutia and Monsanto—is in use, it could be 

only partially utilized for PV installation. This site is a total of 45.3 acres, according to 

calculations based on drawing of the site provided to the NREL assessment team before the site 

visit. Of the total site area, it is estimated that 60% of the site can be utilized. Some small 

obstructions on the south side of the site, a row of trees approximately 40 feet from the east side 

of the site, and a row of trees about 50’ high on the west edge along the river would require the 

solar array to be located approximately 50’ from the tree line. Once the capping on this site is 

finished, a ballasted solar system would be very feasible on this site. The current state of the site 

would allow a usability percentage of approximately 60%, leaving an available area of 1,183,960 

square feet (27.1 acres). On this site, the panels would face south, presenting the potential hazard 

of reflecting glare from the panels at cars passing on the highway. This possibility should be 

assessed before a system is implemented on this site. See Table 3 for the system possibilities. 

The three options outline the three possible types of solar technology that could potentially be 

used. Each option is sized to use all available area outlined in Figure 3. Figure 4 shows a ground 

view of the recommended PV array placement on the partially capped north site.
8 

Figure 3. Partially capped north site: Recommended PV system placement 

Base image courtesy of Google Earth 

Table 3. Partially Capped North Site System Options 

System Type 

Potential System 

Size (kW) 

Annual Energy 

Output (kWh) 

Annual Cost 

Savings ($) 

Annual 

O&M ($) 

System 

Cost ($) 

Crystalline Silicon—

Fixed-Tilt 

4,700 5,348,600 427,890 39,950 16,450,000 

Crystalline Silicon—

Single-Axis Tracking 

3,900 5,070,000 405,600 81,900 16,380,000 

Thin Film Fixed-Tilt 2,000 2,276,000 182,080 14,960 6,160,000 
9 

Figure 4. Partially capped north site: Ground view of recommended PV array site 

Aspect: Looking Northwest 

Credit: Lars Lisell, NREL 

3.3 Large Uncapped Field of Slabs 

Also bordering the Kanawha River is a large field of concrete slabs that awaits additional 

contamination mitigation. This site contains a series of semi-level concrete slabs that has been 

cleared of all infrastructure. This site occupies 71.5 acres, according to calculations based on a 

drawing of the site provided to the NREL assessment team before the site visit. The site has few 

sources of shading. A row of trees about 50’ high on the west edge along the river would require 

the solar array to be located approximately 50’ from the tree line. A contamination mitigation 

project currently underway will result in capping. In its current state or once the site is capped, it 

is a very feasible location for a solar system. A ballasted system would eliminate ground 

disturbances. Potential electrical connection points exist on the east end of the site. Solutia and 

Monsanto own this parcel of land. Assuming a usability percentage 90% for the site, the 

available area is 2,803,090 square feet (64.4 acres). See Table 4 for the system possibilities. The 

three options outline the three possible types of solar technology that could potentially be used. 

Each option is sized to use all available area outlined in Figure 5. Figure 6 shows a ground view 

of the recommended PV array placement within the large uncapped field of slabs.
10 

Figure 5. Large uncapped field of slabs: Recommended PV system placement 

Base image courtesy of Google Earth 

Table 4. Large Uncapped Field of Slabs System Options 

System Type 

Potential System 

Size (kW) 

Annual Energy 

Output (kWh) 

Annual Cost 

Savings ($) 

Annual 

O&M ($) 

System 

Cost ($) 

Crystalline Silicon—

Fixed-Tilt 

11,200 12,745,600 1,019,650 95,200 39,200,000 

Crystalline Silicon—

Single-Axis Tracking 

9,200 11,960,000 956,800 193,200 38,640,000 

Thin Film Fixed-Tilt 4,700 5,348,600 427,890 35,156 14,476,000 
11 

Figure 6. Large uncapped field of slabs: Ground view of recommended PV array site 

Aspect: Looking West 

Credit: Lars Lisell, NREL 

3.4 Temporarily Capped Landfill 

The temporarily capped landfill is an old landfill site that was covered with dirt but has not been 

permanently capped. This site occupies 23.8 acres, according to measurements taken using 

Google Earth. This site may be slated for additional contamination mitigation, including a 

permanent cap. The current site owner, FMC, is enrolled in a voluntary cleanup program, 

according to the contractor that was tasked with tracking the site cleanup.8

 Before a permanent 

cap could be put in place, the site would need to be cleared of vegetation and leveled. If cleared, 

the site would provide a very feasible area for a solar energy system. A row of trees about 50’ 

high on the west edge along the river would require the solar array to be located approximately 

50’ from the tree line. This site should be considered for a PV system once the contamination 

mitigation strategy has been carried out and the cleanup has been completed. Only a ballasted 

system should be considered due to ground disturbance restrictions on the site. Potential 

electrical tie-ins exist at a nearby building site. Assuming a usability percentage of 90% for the 

site, the available area is 933,980 square feet (21.4 acres). See Table 5 for the system 

possibilities. The three options outline the three possible types of solar technology that could 

potentially be used. Each option is sized to use all available area outlined in Figure 7. Figure 8 

shows a ground view of the recommended placement of the PV array within the temporarily 

capped landfill.

 

8

 FMC Corporation is the successor to Avtex Fibers, which operated a landfill at the site. 
12 

Figure 7. Temporarily capped landfill: Recommended PV system placement 

Base image courtesy of Google Earth 

Table 5. Temporarily Capped Landfill System Options 

System Type 

Potential System

Size (kW) 

Annual Energy 

Output (kWh) 

Annual Cost 

Savings ($) 

Annual 

O&M ($) 

System 

Cost ($) 

Crystalline Silicon— 

Fixed-Tilt 

3,700 4,210,600 336,850 31,450 12,950,000 

Crystalline Silicon— 

Single-Axis Tracking 

3,000 3,900,000 312,000 63,000 12,600,000 

Thin Film Fixed-Tilt 1,500 1,707,000 136,560 11,220 4,620,000 
13 

Figure 8. Temporarily capped landfill: Ground view of recommended PV array site 

Aspect: Looking West 

Credit: Lars Lisell, NREL 

3.5 Temporarily Capped Small Parcel 

This piece of land has a temporary cap in place. According to a prepared plan, a permanent cap 

will replace the temporary cap. When it is replaced, this location would provide a good site for a 

solar system. This site occupies 3 acres, according to calculations based on a drawing of the site 

provided to the NREL assessment team before to the site visit. The site has very few 

obstructions, one of which is the row of trees along the west side of the site along the Kanawha 

River. The system should be a ballasted system in order to maintain the integrity of the eventual 

cap. The system should be located on the east side of a small service road that is located next to 

the river. Potential electrical connection points exist on the east end of the site. Assuming a 

usability percentage of 90% for the site, the available area is 117,610 square feet (2.7 acres). See 

Table 6 for the system possibilities. The three options outline the three possible types of solar 

technology that could potentially be used. Each option is sized to use all available area outlined 

in Figure 9. Figure 10 shows a ground view of the recommended placement of the PV array on 

the temporarily capped small parcel.
14 

Figure 9. Temporarily capped small parcel: Recommended PV system placement 

Base image courtesy of Google Earth 

Table 6. Temporarily Capped Small Parcel System Options 

System Type 

Potential System 

Size (kW) 

Annual Energy 

Output (kWh) 

Annual Cost 

Savings ($) 

Annual 

O&M ($) 

System 

Cost ($) 

Crystalline Silicon—

Fixed-Tilt 

450 512,100 40,970 3,825 1,575,000 

Crystalline Silicon—

Single-Axis Tracking 

350 455,000 36,400 7,350 1,470,000 

Thin Film Fixed-Tilt 200 227,600 18,210 1,496 616,000 
15 

Figure 10. Temporarily capped small parcel: Ground view of recommended PV array site 

Aspect: Looking South 

Credit: Lars Lisell, NREL 

3.6 Temporarily Capped Small Landfill 

This area is the location of an old landfill. The landfill was covered up and has since been 

overgrown with brush and trees. This site is a total of 10.4 acres, calculated using a drawing of 

the site that was given to the assessment team prior to the site visit. Before a solar system is 

considered for this site, a permanent cap should be installed. With the installation of the cap, the 

site will be cleared of all trees and brush. A row of trees about 50’ high on the west edge along 

the Kanawha River would require the solar array to be kept on the east side of the small service 

road that runs along the river. The system should be a ballasted system in order to maintain the 

integrity of the cap. Potential electrical connection points exist on the east end of the site. Solutia 

and Monsanto own this parcel of land. Assuming a usability percentage 90% for the site, the 

available area is 407,720 square feet (9.4 acres). See Table 7 for the system possibilities. The 

three options outline the three possible types of solar technology that could potentially be used. 

Each option is sized to use all available area outlined in Figure 11. Figure 12 shows a ground 

view of the recommended placement of the PV array on the temporarily capped small landfill.
16 

Figure 11. Temporarily capped small landfill: Recommended PV system placement 

Base image courtesy of Google Earth 

Table 7. Temporarily Capped Small Landfill System Options 

System Type 

Potential System 

Size (kW) 

Annual Energy 

Output (kWh) 

Annual Cost 

Savings ($) 

Annual 

O&M ($) 

System 

Cost ($) 

Crystalline Silicon—

Fixed-Tilt 

1,600 1,820,800 145,660 13,600 5,600,000 

Crystalline Silicon—

Single-Axis Tracking 

1,300 1,690,000 135,200 27,300 5,460,000 

Thin Film Fixed-Tilt 650 739,700 59,180 4,860 2,002,000 

 
17 

Figure 12. Temporarily capped small landfill: Ground view of recommended PV array site 

Aspect: Looking South 

Credit: Lars Lisell, NREL 

3.7 Partially Demolished Site 

This site is a former industrial site that is partially demolished. It has been cleared of much of the 

infrastructure; however, a number of large and small buildings are still on the site. This site 

occupies 12.85 acres, according to calculations based on drawing of the site provided to the 

NREL assessment team before to the site visit. Where the buildings have been demolished, many 

concrete loading structures—approximately 3 feet in height—are still on the site. These blocks 

could prove to be problematic for the installation of a solar array and would need to be removed 

or worked around. According to the on-site staff, the remaining infrastructure is planned to be 

demolished. The site is going to be capped in the same manner as the capped landfill. A row of 

trees about 50’ high on the west edge along the river would require the solar array to be located 

approximately 50’ from the tree line. This site will be a good site for a solar system once the 

mitigation plan is complete. A ballasted system should be implemented at this site so that the cap 

is not damaged. There are electrical connection points on the east side of this site. Assuming a 

usability percentage of 90% for the site, the available area is 503,770 square feet (11.6 acres). 

See Table 8 for the system possibilities. The three options outline the three possible types of 

solar technology that could potentially be used. Each option is sized to use all available area 

outlined in Figure 12. Figure 14 shows a ground view of the recommended placement of the PV 

array on the partially demolished site.
18 

Figure 13. Partially demolished site: Recommended PV system placement 

Base image courtesy of Google Earth 

Table 8. Partially Demolished Site System Options 

System Type 

Potential System 

Size (kW) 

Annual Energy 

Output (kWh) 

Annual Cost 

Savings ($) 

Annual 

O&M ($) 

System 

Cost ($) 

Crystalline Silicon—

Fixed-Tilt 

2,000 2,276,000 182,080 17,000 7,000,000 

Crystalline Silicon—

Single-Axis Tracking 

1,600 2,080,000 166,400 33,600 6,720,000 

Thin Film Fixed-Tilt 850 967,300 77,384 6,360 2,618,000 
19 

Figure 14. Partially demolished site: Ground view of recommended PV array site 

Aspect: Looking Southwest 

Credit: Lars Lisell, NREL 

3.8 AC&S Chemical Site 

The final site considered is the site of the former Avtex Fibers wastewater treatment plant, which 

is owned by AC&S Chemical. This site occupies 10 acres, according to calculations based on a 

drawing provided to the NREL assessment team during the site visit. This site has considerable 

infrastructure in the form of an old wastewater treatment plant. This includes large concrete 

holding tanks, widespread metal piping runs, and several buildings and cooling towers. One 

portion of the site could be used for solar with minimal site modification. This site would require 

an extensive cleanup to utilize the majority of the site. However, if all of the existing structures 

are removed, the entire site could be a suitable site for a solar PV installation. The site cleanup 

would also require a large number of trees and thick brush to be removed. In the current state, the 

site could be used to implement several small-scale solar PV systems. With minimal removal of 

brush and abandoned equipment, several systems on the order of 15 kW could implemented at 

various locations of the site. However, to implement a large-scale system, extensive site 

modification would have to occur. A row of trees about 50’ high on the west edge along the river 

would require the solar array to be located approximately 50’ from the tree line. Potential 

electrical connection points exist throughout the building site. Assuming a usability percentage 

20% for the site, the available area is 87,120 square feet (2 acres). See Table 9 for the system 

possibilities. The three options outline the three possible types of solar technology that could 

potentially be used. Each option is sized to use all available area outlined in Figure 15. Figure 16 

shows a ground view of the recommended placement of the PV array on the AC&S Chemical 

site. 
20 

Figure 15. AC&S Chemical Site: Recommended PV system placement 

Base image courtesy of Google Earth 

Table 9. AC&S Chemical System Options 

System Type 

Potential System 

Size (kW) 

Annual Energy 

Output (kWh) 

Annual Cost 

Savings ($) 

Annual 

O&M ($) 

System 

Cost ($) 

Crystalline Silicon—

Fixed-Tilt 

350 398,300 31,864 2,975 1,225,000 

Crystalline Silicon—

Single-Axis Tracking 

250 325,000 26,000 5,250 1,050,000 

Thin Film Fixed-Tilt 150 170,700 13,656 1,120 462,000 

 
21 

Figure 16. AC&S Chemical Site: Ground view of recommended PV array site 

Aspect: Looking Northeast 

Credit: Lars Lisell, NREL 

3.9 Summary of All Sites 

Eight sites in or near Nitro were considered, all of which were found suitable for PV systems. 

The economics of the potential systems were analyzed using an electric rate of $0.08/kWh, as 

well as incentives that are offered by the State of West Virginia and by the serving utility, 

American Electric Power (AEP). Currently, no incentives are offered for commercial size solar 

power systems in West Virginia, or by AEP. Table 10 summarizes the system performance and 

economics of a potential system that would use all available areas that were surveyed in Nitro. It 

should be noted that all sites do not need to be developed with one project; beginning with a 

smaller demonstration system and increasing capacity as funds become available may make 

more sense. Calculations for this analysis assume the 30% federal tax credit incentive would be 

captured for the system. 

Table 10. PV System Performance and Economics by System Typea

Array Tilt 

(Deg) 

PV System 

Size (kW) 

Annual 

Output 

(kWh/year) 

Annual Cost 

Savings 

($/year) 

Annual 

O&M 

($/year) 

System 

Cost with 

Incentives 

($) 

Payback 

Period with 

Incentive 

(years) 

Crystalline Silicon (Fixed-Tilt) 

 38.4 27,600 31,408,800 $2,512,700 $234,600 $96,600,000 42 

Crystalline Silicon (Single-Axis Tracking) 

 0 22,600 29,380,000 $2,350,400 $474,600 $94,920,000 51 

Thin Film (Fixed-Tilt) 

38.4 11,550 13,143,900 $1,051,510 $86,394 $35,574,000 37 a

 Data assume a maximum usable area of 6,957,397 ft2. 
22 

4 Economics and Performance 

4.1 Assumptions and Input Data for Analysis 

For this analysis, the following input data were used. The installed cost of fixed-tilt, roofmounted system was assumed to be $6/W. The installed cost of fixed-tilt, ground-mounted 

systems was assumed to be $5/W. These prices include the PV array and the balance–of-system 

components for each system, including the inverter and electrical equipment, and installation. 

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

resource, including panel tilt and orientation. For this analysis, the cost of electricity was 

assumed to be $0.08/kWh. 

A system DC to AC conversion of 77% was assumed. This includes losses in the inverter, wire 

losses, PV module losses, and losses due to temperature effects, for example. Figure 17 

summarizes average system installation costs for grid-tied PV systems in the United States in 

2008; however, the costs have dropped significantly since 2008. PVWATTSTM was used to 

calculate energy performance. 

 

Figure 17. Average installation cost for grid-tied U.S. PV systems, 20089

For this analysis, it is assumed that federal incentives are received. Identifying and leveraging 

state incentives and grants is an important part of making PV systems cost effective. A private, 

tax-paying entity that owns PV systems a can qualify for a 30% federal business energy 

investment tax credit (ITC) and accelerated depreciation on the PV system, which are worth 

about 15%. The total potential tax benefits to the tax-paying entity are about 45% of the system 

cost. Alternatively, the tax-paying entity can opt to receive a cash payment of up to 30% of 

eligible project costs from the U.S. Department of Treasury Section 1603 program10 once the 

eligible system is in service. The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) of 2009 

allows for this cash payment in lieu of the ITC. To receive the payment from Treasury, 

construction of the property must begin no later than December 31, 2010. Because the federal 

 

9

 Wiser, R. ; Barbose, G.; Peterman, C.; Darghouth, N. (2009 October). Tracking the Sun II: The Installed Cost of 

Photovoltaics in the U.S. from 1998-2008. LBNL-2674E. Berkeley, CA. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 

http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/emp/reports/lbnl-2674e.pdf 

10 This program was codified in Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 
23 

government does not pay taxes, private ownership of the PV system would be required to capture 

tax incentives or Section 1603 grant payments11. 

4.2 Incentives and Financing Opportunities 

The Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE) provides a summary 

of net metering, interconnection, and other incentives available to West Virginia utility 

customers. The utility for the City of Nitro is American Electric Power (AEP). 

Renewable energy systems, including commercial solar PV, are subject to interconnection rules 

promulgated at the state level. No interconnection rules were found on the DSIRE Web site. The 

utility should be contacted directly to determine what requirements are in place. West Virginia 

recently released a renewable portfolio standard (RPS). It sets the goal of 25% of total electricity 

generation from alternative sources and renewable energy by 2025. This standard does not have 

a set-aside for solar energy. 

West Virginia has a net-metering policy for residential and commercial systems up to 25 kW in 

capacity that generate electricity using photovoltaics (PV), wind, biomass, landfill gas, 

hydropower or fuel cells. Net excess generation will be carried over to a customer-generator's 

next bill, for up to 12 months, as a kilowatt-hour (kWh) credit (DSIRE). 

Currently, no incentives are offered by the state of West Virginia or by the serving utility, AEP. 

Incentives greatly affect the economics of a system, and the lack of incentives in West Virginia 

will have a large impact on the feasibility of a system at the sites in Nitro. The 30% tax credit 

federal incentive can be captured if the system is owned by a tax-paying entity. 

The system facilitator could potentially pursue an agreement with AEP that would negotiate both 

a higher price for the electricity produced by the potential system and the potential to sell 

renewable energy credits (RECs). Any power that is produced by a solar PV system will help the 

state reach its renewable portfolio standard and would be a major opportunity for AEP to 

accelerate the diversification of their energy mix with clean energy. Electricity consumers in the 

United States are willing to pay a premium for certified clean energy,12 and AEP could start a 

voluntary green power-purchase pilot program with energy from the sites in Nitro.13

Technical assistance to support project development is available. Through the U.S. Department 

of Energy (DOE), the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) has funded 

West Virginia University and other organizations to advance the use of West Virginia’s wind and 

renewable resources. The activity provides technical assistance to commercial power developers, 

technology projects involving liquid fuels developed from biomass, and information to the public 

on renewable energy applications. The DOE Office of EERE can assist commercial wind and 

 

11 http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/index.cfm?re=1&ee=1&spv=0&st=0&srp=1&state=WV. 12 Transmission & Distribution World. (2009 April 14). “NREL Highlights Utility Green Power Leaders.” 

http://tdworld.com/customer_service/doe-nrel-utility-green-power-0409/. Accessed July 20, 2100. 13 An example of such a program is Xcel Energy’s Windsource program. For more information, see http://www

.xcelenergy.com/Colorado/Company/Environment/Renewable%20Energy/Pages/Wind_Power.aspx. For detailed 

information about federal, state, and local incentives in West Virginia, see http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/

index.cfm?re=1&ee=1&spv=0&st=0&srp=1&state=WV. 
24 

solar developers by providing detailed renewable resource maps, interfacing with West Virginia 

utilities and contacting local economic developers. 

There are several options for financing a solar PV system. However, obtaining investment from 

landowners with little on-site presence—such as is the case with the sites in Nitro—can be 

difficult. A potential alternative financing option is the third-party ownership, power-purchase 

agreement (PPA). The agreement works by having a solar contractor install, finance, and operate 

the system, while the utility company purchase the electricity generated by the system. The 

system is financed by the solar contractor, and the payments are paid by the electricity and RECs 

that are sold to the utility. In this configuration, the land on which the PV solar system is located 

would need to be leased to the owner of the system for the duration of the contract. 

Alternatively, the West Virginia Economic Development Authority (WVEDA) has a direct loan 

program that could be leveraged. Under this program, loans are set between $50 thousand and 

$10 million. Financial assistance is available to program participants for financing fixed assets 

for business classifications that are targeted by the West Virginia Development Office and which 

meet WVEDA’s job creation criteria; this includes any renewable energy project. Other gap 

financing tools that may be available include tax increment financing (TIF) and revolving loan 

fund (RLF) grants from the EPA.14 Connecticut, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin have been 

leaders in structuring state-facilitated TIF financing as an effective and efficient means to 

enhance brownfield programs and to obtain successful cleanup and redevelopment results. 

Municipalities are good candidates for TIF because it is an incentive they can implement under 

their own control. A full list of incentives can be found in Appendix B. 

4.3 Job Creation 

The implementation of this project would represent a large amount of money entering the clean 

energy industry of the United States. The Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) calculated the 

number of jobs (direct, indirect and induced) created due to federal spending using economic 

models developed with real world data. CEA found that $92,000 in federal spending is 

equivalent to one job-year. This means that for every $92,000 of Federal money that is spent, 

there is a job created that can be sustained for one year. See Table 11 for an estimate of job 

creation by system type if all eight sites studied at Nitro were used for solar PV. This project 

represents a large amount of money that would create a significant number of jobs. A portion of 

these jobs, including the installation and system maintenance jobs, will be created within the 

community. The jobs created column refers to the number of job-years that would be created as a 

result of the onetime project capital investment. This means that the jobs would be created and 

sustained for one year. The jobs sustained column refers to the number of jobs that would be 

sustained as a result of the operations and maintenance of the system. These jobs would be 

sustained for the life of the system, due to the annual cost to keep the system operating. 

 

 

14 For more information, see http://epa.gov/brownfields/rlflst.htm. 
25 

Table 11. Estimated Job Creation by PV System Type 

System Type Jobs Createda

(job years) 

Jobs Sustainedb

(number of jobs) 

Crystalline Silicon (Fixed-Tilt) 1050 3 

Crystalline Silicon (Single-Axis Tracking) 1031 5 

Thin Film (Fixed-Tilt) 387 1 a

 Job-years created as a result of project capital investment including direct, indirect and induced jobs. b

 Jobs (direct, indirect and induced) sustained as a result of operations and maintenance (O&M) of the 

system.

 
26 

5 Potential Rate Increases 

The economics of a potential PV system in the Nitro area depend greatly on the cost of 

electricity. Currently, AEP is on track to raise electric rates by 43%15 over the next three years. 

This would increase the cost of electricity from $0.086/kWh to $0.123/kWh. A rate increase of 

this magnitude would greatly improve the economics of a solar PV generation plant. See Table 

12 for a summary of the system economics with the anticipated rate increase information. 

Table 12. PV System Performance and Economics with Anticipated Rate Increasea

Array Tilt 

(Deg) 

PV System 

Size (kW) 

Annual 

Output 

(kWh/year) 

Annual Cost 

Savings 

($/year) 

Annual O&M 

($/year) 

System 

Cost with 

Incentives 

($) 

Payback 

Period with 

Incentive 

(years) 

Crystalline Silicon (Fixed-Tilt) 

38.4 27,600 31,408,800 $3,862,654 $234,600 $96,600,000 27 

Crystalline Silicon (Single-Axis Tracking) 

0 22,600 29,380,000 $3,613,152 $474,600 $94,920,000 30 

Thin Film (Fixed-Tilt) 

38.4 11,550 13,143,900 $1,616,437 $86,394 $35,574,000 23 a

 Data assume a maximum usable area of 6,957,397 ft2.

It is uncertain how the rates will increase in the years following the near-term jump. Using the 

Solar Advisor Model that was developed at NREL,16 several rate increase scenarios were 

modeled to determine the economic repercussions relating to the system feasibility. The thin-film 

system was modeled with 5%, 10%, and 20% rate escalation rates over the system life. The 

results of the analysis can be found below in Table 13. The rates reflected in the table are percent 

rate increases above inflation. The first two rate increase scenarios—5% and 10%—could 

happen given passage of legislation limiting greenhouse gas emissions. The third rate increase 

scenario is less likely but not impossible. 

Table 13. Hypothetical Rate Increase Scenarios 

Rate Increase (%/yr) Payback Period (yrs) Net Present Value ($) 

5% 24.6 $-16,254,848 

10% 16.5 $3,649,294 

20% 11.1 $176,205,055 

 

15 AllBusiness.com. (2009 March 13). “AEP Asks State for 43 Percent Rate Increase” http://www.allbusiness.com/

energy-utilities/utilities-industry-electric-power/12275763-1.html. Accessed July 20, 2010. 16 The Solar Advisor Model combines a detailed performance model with several types of financing for most solar 

technologies. For more information, see https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sam/. 
27 

6 Conclusions and Recommendations 

The sites considered in this report are all feasible areas in which to implement solar PV system 

systems. Using obtainable and accessible land that is unavailable for other purposes allows for 

re-use of land that would not otherwise contribute to productivity for Nitro. Installing a solar 

generation plant and the associated facilities on brownfields relieves “greenfields” of land use 

impacts. Developing solar facilities on brownfields can provide an economically viable reuse 

option for sites with significant cleanup costs or for sites where local economic conditions 

prohibit traditional reuse of the site, as is the case with Nitro. The site has existing transmission 

capacity, roads, industrial zoning, and all other critical infrastructure in place for PV systems. 

It is recommended that the party ultimately responsible for facilitating the implementation of PV 

systems contact AEP and attempt to set up an agreement in which AEP would purchase the 

electricity generated at sites studied. According to the site production calculations, the most cost 

effective system in terms of return on investment is the fixed-tilt, thin-film technology. The 

lower cost of the system combined with the ample land available makes a thin-film system a 

good fit for these sites. Thin-film technology is a proven technology that can be successfully 

implemented with a ballasted-style mounting system. Crystalline silicon system styles—both 

fixed-tilt tracking and single-axis tracking systems—could also be implemented, but the 

increased cost of the crystalline silicon panels may extend the payback period. 

For this feasibility study, system calculations and sizes were based on site acreage; however, 

actual system installation should be based on the availability of funds or on the amount of power 

that can be sold. Installing a small demonstration system and adding capacity as funding 

becomes available might be a good option. When the system goes out to bid, a design-build 

contract should be issued that requests the best performance (kWh/yr) at the best price and which 

allows vendors to optimize system configuration, including slope. A third-party ownership PPA 

provides the most feasible way for a system to be financed on these sites. All payback 

calculations assumed that the 30% federal tax credit would be captured for the systems. 

In the coming years, increasing electrical rates and increased necessity for clean power will 

continue to improve the feasibility of implementing solar PV systems at these sites. 
28 

Appendix A. Assumptions for Calculations* 

Table A-1. Assumptions for Calculations 

Location 

Array Tilt 

(Deg)

Max Usable Area (ft^2)

Rounded PV System Size (kW)

Annual Output (kWh/year)

Annual Cost 

Savings ($/year)

Annual O&M ($/year)

SyIn

Crystalline Silicon (Fixed-Tilt)Capped Landfill 38.4 920,147 3,600 4,096,800 327,744 30,600 12

Temporarily Capped Landfill 38.4 933,978 3,700 4,210,600 336,848 31,450 12

AC&S Chemical 38.4 87,120 350 398,300 31,864 2,975 1,

Partially Demolished Site 38.4 503,771 2,000 2,276,000 182,080 17,000 7,

Large Uncapped Field of Slabs 38.4 2,803,086 11,200 12,745,600 1,019,648 95,200 39

Temporarily Capped Small Parcel 38.4 117,612 450 512,100 40,968 3,825 1,

Temporarily Capped Small Landfill 38.4 407,722 1,600 1,820,800 145,664 13,600 5,

Partially Capped North Site 38.4 1,183,961 4,700 5,348,600 427,888 39,950 16

All Site Total 38.4 6,957,397 27,600 31,408,800 2,512,700 234,600 96

Crystalline Silicon (Single-Axis Tracking)Capped Landfill 0 920,147 3,000 3,900,000 312,000 63,000 12

Temporarily Capped Landfill 0 933,978 3,000 3,900,000 312,000 63,000 12

AC&S Chemical 0 87,120 250 325,000 26,000 5,250 1,Partially Demolished Site 0 503,771 1,600 2,080,000 166,400 33,600 6,

Large Uncapped Field of Slabs 0 2,803,086 9,200 11,960,000 956,800 193,200 38

Temporarily Capped Small Parcel 0 117,612 350 455,000 36,400 7,350 1,

Temporarily Capped Small Landfill 0 407,722 1,300 1,690,000 135,200 27,300 5,4

Partially Capped North Site 0 1,183,961 3,900 5,070,000 405,600 81,900 16

All Site Total 0 6,957,397 22,600 29,380,000 2,350,400 474,600 94

Thin Film ( Fixed-Tilt)Capped Landfill 38.4 920,147 1,500 1,707,000 136,560 11,220 4,

Temporarily Capped Landfill 38.4 933,978 1,500 1,707,000 136,560 11,220 4,

AC&S Chemical 38.4 87,120 150 170,700 13,656 1,122 46

Partially Demolished Site 38.4 503,771 850 967,300 77,384 6,358 2,

Large Uncapped Field of Slabs 38.4 2,803,086 4,700 5,348,600 427,888 35,156 14

Temporarily Capped Small Parcel 38.4 117,612 200 227,600 18,208 1,496 61

Temporarily Capped Small Landfill 38.4 407,722 650 739,700 59,176 4,862 2,

Partially Capped North Site 38.4 1,183,961 2,000 2,276,000 182,080 14,960 6,

All Site Total 38.4 6,957,397 11,550 13,143,900 1,051,510 86,394 35

*These calculations assume that the 30% federal tax credit is secured
29 

Table A-2. Other Assumptions, including Assumptions for Costs and System Types 

 

Cost Assumptions 

Variable Quantity of Variable Unit of Variable 

Cost of Site Electricity 0.08 $/kWh 

Annual O&M (fixed) 0.17% % of installed cost 

Annual O&M (tracking) 0.35% % of installed cost 

System Assumptions 

System Type 

Annual energy 

(kWh/kW) 

Installed Cost 

($/W) 

Energy Density 

(W/ft.2

) 

Ground fixed 1138 $5.00 4.0 

Ground Single-Axis tracking 1300 $6.00 3.3 

Thin Film Fixed 1138 $4.40 1.7 

Other Assumptions 1 acre 43,560 sq ft. 

1 MW 1,000,000 W 

Ground utilization 90% of available area 

Incentives Federal Tax Credit 
30 

Appendix B. Renewable Energy Incentives* 

Table B-1. Brownfield Redevelopment and Renewable Energy Incentives and Financing Tool

Agency Incentive Name 

Incentive (I), 

Finance Tool 

(FT) Public Private F

HUD Brownfield Economic Development Initiative 

(BEDI) Competitive Grant Program I X Xb $17.5 millio

Award cap 

HUD Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program FT X Xb Up to 5 time

approved C

a Must be used in conjunction with Section 108 loan guarantee commitment. bThrough re-loan from public entity 

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

Agency Incentive Name 

Incentive (I), 

Finance Tool 

(FT) Public Private F

DOE Loan Guarantee Program FT X X Not specifieDOE Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) I X 2.1 cents p

HUD Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) I X Based on c

Treasury 1603 Renewable Energy Grant Program *option to ITC I X 30% of the 

renewable 

Treasury Business Energy Investment Tax Credit (ITC) *option to 1603 I X 30% of proj

Treasury Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREB) FT X Varies Treasury Modified Accelerated Cost-Recovery System (MACRS) FT X Various depTreasury Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds (QECB) FT X Varies USDA Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) Grants I X X 25% of proj

$2.5K-$500

USDA Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) Loan Guarantees FT X X Up to 75% 

$25M/Min $

* Sources: Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy and Efficiency 2009; and U.S. Department of Housing and 2009 
31 

Table B-3. State Rebates for Commercial-Sector PV Projects 

The programs included here are ongoing rebate and grant programs administered by state agencies or by third-pa

behalf of state governments. In addition to the programs highlighted above, about 75 utilities in the United States 

some states, such as Colorado and Arizona, solar rebates are available nearly statewide from utilities that must corenewable portfolio standards, but these are not shown in the table. Finally, programs that are purely performancstate of Washington's production incentive and California's feed-in tariff, are not included in this table. 

State Program Name Incentive Amount REC Ownership F

California California Solar Initiative Varies by sector and system size Remains with project 

owner 

Rate-paye

California CEC - New Solar Homes 

Partnership 

Varies. Incentives are adjusted based on expected performance, and will decline over time based on the total installed capacity. 

Remains with system owner 

Rate paye

Connecticut CCEF - On-Site 

Renewable DG Program 

For for-profit owners: $3.00/W for first 100 kW, $2.00/W for next 100 kW. Not-for-profit system owners: $4.50/W for first 100 kW, $4.00/W for next 100 kW. Additional $0.10/W premium for buildings that meet LEED Silver certification; CCEF also compensates system owners based on the estimated present value of the system's RECs. 

RECs transfer to CCEF for systems 50 kW-PTC and larger. CCEF compensates system owners based on estimated present value of the system's RECs over 15 yrs. 

Connectic(public ben

Delaware Green Energy Program 

Incentives 

Delmarva: 25% of installed cost (35% for non-profits, government); DEC: 33.3% of installed cost; Minis: 33.3% of installed cost, except 25% for Dover, Seaford; PV system cost may not exceed $12/W 

Remains with project owner 

Green EneDEC ReneFund, MunEnergy Fufunds) 

District of Columbia 

Renewable Energy Incentive Program 

$3/W DC for first 3 kW; $2/W DC for next 7 kW; $1/W DC for next 10 kW 

Remains with system owner 

Sustainab(public ben

Florida Solar Energy System 

Incentives Program 

$4/watt DC Remains with system 

owner 

General R(appropria

Illinois DCEO - Solar and Wind 

Energy Rebate Program 

NOTE (02/2010): Funding for FY 2010 has been fully allocated; no 

Remains with customer/producer 

Illinois ReResources 
32 

State Program Name Incentive Amount REC Ownership F

additional rebates are available. Residential and commercial: 30%; Non-profit and Public: 50% 

benefits fu

Maine Solar and Wind Energy 

Rebate Program 

$2/W AC Remains with 

customer/producer 

Funded by 0.005 cenand distrib$500,000 10 and FYusing AmeReinvestm

(Recovery 

Maryland Mid-Size Solar Energy 

Grant Program 

$500/kW for first 20 kW DC; $250/kW for next 30 kW; $150/kW for next 50 kW 

Remains with project owner 

 Recovery 

Maryland Solar Energy Grant 

Program 

$1.25/W DC for first 2 kW; $0.75/W for next 6 kW; $0.25/W for next 12 kW 

Remains with project owner 

General R(appropriafunds suppproceeds 

Massachusetts CEC - Commonwealth 

Solar II Rebates 

$1/W DC base; $0.10/W DC adder for MA components; $1.00/W DC adder for moderate home value or for moderate income 

Remains with project owner 

MassachuEnergy Tr

Massachusetts CEC - Commonwealth 

Solar Stimulus 

$1.50/W (DC) for first 25 kW; $1.00/W (DC) for > 25 kW to 100w kW; $0.50/W (DC) for > 100 kW to 200 kW 

Remains with project owner 

The AmerReinvestm

Nevada NV Energy – Renewable 

Generations Rebate Program 

(2010-2011 program year) Residential and small business: $2.30/W AC; Public Facilities/Schools: $5.00/W AC 

NV Energy Rate-paye

New Jersey New Jersey CustomerSited Renewable Energy 

Rebates 

Standard residential: $1.55/W DC; Residential w/energy efficiency: $1.75/W DC; Residential New Construction: varies by efficiency, $1.00 - 1.75/W DC; Standard nonresidential: $0.90/W DC; NonRemains with project owner New Jerse

Charge (p
33 

State Program Name Incentive Amount REC Ownership F

residential w/efficiency: $1.00/W DC 

New Jersey Renewable Energy 

Manufacturing Incentives (for End-Use PV Installations) 

Varies by equipment type, sector, and system size; Ranges from $0.05 - $0.55/W DC. 

Not applicable New Jerse

Charge (p

New York NYSERDA - PV Incentive 

Program 

Residential (first 5 kW): $1.75/W DC; Non-Residential (first 50 kW): $1.75/W DC; Non-profit, government, schools: (first 25 kW): $1.75/W DC; Bonus incentive: $0.50/W for Energy Star Homes and BIPV systems 

First 3 years: NYSERDA, thereafter customer/generator 

RPS surch

Ohio ODOD - Advanced 

Energy Program Grants - Non-Residential Renewable Energy Incentive 

$3.50 per DC watt, may be reduced by shading 

Not specified Ohio Adva

Oregon Energy Trust - Solar 

Electric Buy-Down Program 

Residential: $1.50/W DC for Pacific Power; $1.75/W DC for PGE; Residential, Third Party: $1/W DC for Pacific Power; $1.25/W DC for PGE; Commercial: $1/W - $0.50/W for Pacific Power; $1.25/W - $0.75/W for PGE; nonprofit/government: $1.25/W - $0.75/W for Pacific Power; $1.50/W - $1/W for PGE 

Residential: RECs for first 5 yrs. owned by customer/producer; Non-residential: RECs for first 5 yrs. owned by consumer/producer, Energy Trust owns RECs for years 6-20 

Energy Trbenefits fu

Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Sunshine 

Solar Rebate Program 

Residential: $2.25/W DC; Commercial: $1.25/W DC for first 10 kW, $1.00/W DC for next 90 kW, $0.75/W DC for next 100 kW; LowIncome: 35% of installed costs 

Not specified, but net metering customers generally retain title to RECs 

PennsylvaIndepende

Puerto Rico Puerto Rico - State 

Energy Program - Sun Energy Rebate Program 

Solar PV: Residential and Commercial $4/watt (DC) Solar PV: Governmental $8/watt (DC) 

Not addressed The Amer

ReinvestmProgram f

Tennessee Tennessee Clean Energy 

Technology Grant 

40% of installed cost Not specified State of Te

and Comm
34 

State Program Name Incentive Amount REC Ownership F

Energy Di

Vermont Vermont Small-Scale 

Renewable Energy Incentive Program 

Individuals/Businesses: $1.75/watt DC; Multi-family, low-income: $3.50/W DC 

Not addressed Utility settl

Vermont CDevelopm

Wisconsin Focus on Energy - 

Renewable Energy CashBack Rewards 

Residential/Business: $1.00/kWh/1-yr.; non-profit/government: $1.50/kWh/1-yr.; (Estimated 1-yr. production using PV Watts). Efficiency First participants: add $0.25/kWh/1-yr. 

Not addressed Focus on 

Source: Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy and Efficiency 2010 

Please note: The information provided in this table presents an overview of state incentives, but it should not be used as thinformation when making purchasing decisions, investment decisions, tax decisions or other binding agreements. For more individual programs listed above, visit the DSIRE Web site at http://www.dsireusa.org/. 
35 

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

State Program Name Eligible Recipients 

Incentive 

Amount 

Third-Party Owner 

Eligible 

No

Arizona Non-Residential 

Solar & Wind Tax Credit (Corporate) 

Any non-residential installation is eligible, including those for nonprofits and governments. Individuals, corporations and S corporations and partnerships may claim the credit. Third party financiers/installers/mfrs. of eligible system may claim the credit. 

10% Yes Yes 

Florida Renewable 

Energy Production Tax Credit 

A non-residential taxpayer with facility placed in service or expanded after May 1, 2006. The credit is for electricity produced and sold by the taxpayer to an unrelated party during a given tax year. Florida corporate income taxpayers who own an interest in a general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, trust or other artificial entity that owns a Florida renewable energy facility can apply for this credit. 

$0.01/kWh Not specified Not 

Georgia Clean Energy 

Tax Credit (Corporate) 

Any GA taxpayer who has constructed, purchased, or leased renewable energy property and placed it in service. 

35% Yes Not 

Hawaii Solar and Wind 

Energy Credit (Corporate) 

Hawaii taxpayer that files a corporate net income tax return or franchise tax return; Credit may be claimed for every eligible renewable energy technology system that is installed and placed in service. Third-party taxpaying entities may claim the credit if they install and own a system on a commercial taxpayer’s building or on a non-profit 

35% Yes Yes 
36 

State Program Name Eligible Recipients 

Incentive 

Amount 

Third-Party Owner 

Eligible 

No

or government building. Multiple owners of a single system may take a single tax credit. The credit is apportioned between the owners in proportion to their contribution to the system's cost. 

Iowa Renewable 

Energy Production Tax Credits (Corporate) 

Producers or purchasers of renewable energy from qualified facilities; Installations must be at least 51% owned by a state resident or other qualifying owner, and placed in service on or after July 1, 2005 and before January 1, 2012. Electricity must be sold to an unrelated person to qualify for the tax credit. 

$0.015/kWh for 10 years after energy production begins. 

Yes, credits may be claimed by system owner or by purchaser of electricity. System owners must meet certain eligibility criteria. 

Schassowtrantim

Kentucky Renewable 

Energy Tax Credit (Corporate) 

Any installation on a dwelling unit or on property that is owned and used by the taxpayer as commercial property 

$3.00/watt (DC) Not specified Not 

Kentucky Tax Credit for 

Renewable Energy Facilities 

Companies that build or renovate facilities that utilize renewable 

energy 

100% Kentucky income tax or limited liability entity tax 

Not specified Not 

Louisiana Tax Credit for 

Solar and Wind Energy Systems on Residential Property (Corporate) 

A taxpayer who purchases and installs an eligible system or who purchases a new home with such a system already in place 

50% No No 

Maryland Clean Energy 

Production Tax Credit (Corporate) 

All individuals and corporations that sell electricity produced by a qualified facility to an unrelated person; Net metering arrangements qualify. 

$0.0085/kWh for 5 years after facility is placed in service. 

Not specified No 
37 

State Program Name Eligible Recipients 

Incentive 

Amount 

Third-Party Owner 

Eligible 

No

Montana Alternative 

Energy Investment Tax Credit (Corporate) 

A corporation, partnership, or small business corporation that makes a minimum investment of $5,000 

35% No No 

New Mexico 

Advanced Energy Tax Credit (Corporate) 

Any taxpayer 6% No. No

New Mexico 

Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (Corporate) 

A taxpayer who holds title to a qualified energy generator that first produced electricity on or before January 1, 2018; or a taxpayer who leases property upon which a qualified energy generator operates from a county or municipality under authority of an industrial revenue bond and if the qualified energy generator first produced electricity on or before January 1, 2018. 

Varies annually over 10 years; $0.027/kWh average 

Not specified Not 

New Mexico 

Solar Market Development Tax Credit 

Residents and non-corporate businesses, including agricultural enterprises 

10% of purchase and installation costs 

No No 

North Carolina 

Renewable Energy Tax Credit (Corporate) 

Any NC taxpayer who has constructed, purchased, or leased renewable energy property and placed it in service. 

35% (distributed 7% per year for 5 years for nonresidential installations) 

Yes. For leasing, a taxpayer may take credit for property that the taxpayer leases if written verification is received from the owner that states that owner will not take credit for renewable energy installation. 

No 

North Dakota 

Renewable Energy Tax Credit 

Corporate taxpayers filing a North Dakota income tax return. System must be installed on a building or on 

15% (distributed 3% per year for 5 

A pass-through entity that installs the system at a property it owns or leases 

No 
38 

State Program Name Eligible Recipients 

Incentive 

Amount 

Third-Party Owner 

Eligible 

No

property owned or leased by the taxpayer in North Dakota. 

years) is considered the taxpayer. 

The credit amount allowed is determined at the passthrough entity level and must be passed through proportionally to corporate partners, shareholders or members. 

Oklahoma Zero-Emission 

Facilities Production Tax Credit 

Any non-residential taxpayer who sells electricity to an unrelated person; Any nontaxable entities, including agencies of the State of Oklahoma, may transfer their credit to a taxpayer. 

$0.0050/kWh for first 10 years of operation 

Yes Yes

incStapoltheadvby tax

Oregon Business 

Energy Tax Credit 

Trade, business or rental property owners who pay taxes for a business site in Oregon are eligible for the tax credit. The business, its partners or its shareholders may use the credit. A project owner also can be an Oregon non-profit organization, tribe or public entity that partners with an Oregon business or resident who has an Oregon tax liability. This can be done using the pass-through option. 

50% (distributed 10% per year for 5 years) 

Yes A p

nonentbustakpaspasa pthe EneeligparcasthroyeaCre1, 2The rate Enewith 
39 

State Program Name Eligible Recipients 

Incentive 

Amount 

Third-Party Owner 

Eligible 

No

$20Octper

Puerto Rico 

Puerto Rico - Solar Tax Credit (Corporate) 

Any Puerto Rican taxpayer who has acquired, assembled, and installed eligible solar electric equipment. 

75% during FY 2007-08 and 2008-09; 50% during FY 2009-10 and FY 2010-11; 25% starting FY 2011-12 

Not specified Pot

maothoth

Rhode Island 

Residential Renewable Energy Tax Credit (Corporate) 

Rhode Island taxpayer who (1) owns, rents, or is the contract buyer of the dwelling(s) served by the system; The dwelling or dwellings must be in the main or secondary residence of the person who applies for the tax credit, or of a tenant; or (2) owns, or is the contract buyer of the system and pays all or part of the cost of the system; or (3) is the contractor that owns the dwelling for speculative sale in which the system is installed 

25% Yes. Credit is available to 

RI taxpayers who are the contract buyers of eligible systems and pay all or part of the cost of the system. 

No 

South Carolina 

Solar Energy and Small Hydropower Tax Credit (Corporate) 

Taxpayers who purchase and install 

an eligible system in or on a facility owned by the taxpayer 

25% for 2010; was 30% in 2009 

No No 

Utah Renewable 

Energy Systems Tax Credit (Corporate) 

Any company that owns a qualified system 

Residential: 25%; Commercial: 10% 

No No 

Vermont Business Tax 

Credit for Solar 

Corporations that pay corporate income tax in Vermont that do not 

30% of expenditures 

Not specified No 
40 

State Program Name Eligible Recipients 

Incentive 

Amount 

Third-Party Owner 

Eligible 

No

(Corporate) receive grants/funding from CEDF. (for systems 

placed into service on or before 12/31/2010). 

Source: Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy and Efficiency 2010b Please note: The information provided in this table presents an overview of state incentives, but it should not be used as thinformation when making purchasing decisions, investment decisions, tax decisions or other binding agreements. For more individual programs listed above, visit the DSIRE Web site at http://www.dsireusa.org/.
41 

Table B-5. U.S. Department of Energy Brightfields Program Grantsa

Award Year 

Award Amount 

Project Project Description P

2000 $30,000 Brockton, MA: 

Brownfields to Brightfields Project 

“This project involved attracting a photovoltaic system manufacturer to a Brockton Brownfield and building a solar array on a second site. Anticipation: This array will bring into productive use up to 27 acres of idle property and the array could also generate up to 6 MW of electricity. To create sufficient local demand to attract the manufacturer, other potential sites for photovoltaic applications will be surveyed.” 

4cs2k2sinP

$50,000 Atlantic City, NJ: 

Cityscape SolarPowered Bed and Breakfast on and Urban Brownfield. 

“Involves the construction of a solar powered bed and breakfast on an urban Brownfield site in Atlantic City, New Jersey as part of an overall neighborhood redevelopment plan with a sustainability theme. The project will showcase the use of photovoltaics in supplying renewable energy and also contain sustainable features such as recycled building materials and Energy Star appliances, and will be located in the "Cityscape Neighborhood," an area designed to promote renewable energy, sustainable building materials, and concepts of New Urbanism.” 

P

$50,000 Hanford, WA: 

Brightfield Project 

“This project will ultimately be the largest photovoltaic installation of its kind, and will bring the Brightfield concept to one of the worst Super Fund sites in the nation. The funding provided will cover a portion of the pilot phase of the project, involving 40kW. Later phases will use a 

wind/solar green energy blending strategy to finance development up to 1MW or larger. This solar array will act as a nucleation site around which Energy Northwest intends to grow a renewable energy industrial park.” 

3in 

2004 $65,400 Cedar Rapids, IA: 

Bohemian Commercial Historic District Solar Development Program 

“The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) will partner with the City of Cedar Rapids, the Iowa Renewable Energy Association, Alliant Energy, and Thorland Company to install a 7200-Watt solar array in Cedar Rapids on a multiuse converted former warehouse building in a designated Brownfields redevelopment area.”The IDNR has established partnerships with the City of Cedar Rapids, Alliant Energy, the Iowa Renewable Energy Association, and the building owner to increase the economic and environmental viability of a redeveloped Brownfield area and expand the value and viability of solar projects.” 

7

 $59,400 Brockton, MA: Solar “The City of Brockton will build New England's largest solar array at a 4
42 

Energy Park: Deploying a Solar Array on a Brownfield 

remediated 27-acre Brownfield site in fall 2004. The 500-kilowatt (kW) solar photovoltaic (PV) array — or "Brightfield" — will be installed in an urban park setting with interpretive displays. The Brightfield could include as many as 6,720 solar panels connected in strings that span the site. The Brightfield will grow incrementally to 1 MW with expansions financed through positive annual cash flow generated by the sale of renewable energy certificates (RECs) and electricity.” 

cs2k2sinP

 $125,000 Raleigh, NC: 

Brightfield Technology Demonstration at NCSU 

“Carolina Green Energy, LLC proposes to partner with the North Carolina Solar Center to design and install a 30-kW grid-tied photovoltaic (PV) system. As part of its continued efforts to bolster support for renewable energy, the Solar Center will incorporate the "Brownfield to Brightfield" project at Lot 86 into its ongoing education and outreach programs.” 

7pO

Source: U.S. Department of Energy State Energy Program 2006 According to EPA, the term brightfields refers to “the conversion of contaminated sites into usable land by bringing pollutionhigh-tech solar manufacturing jobs to these sites, including the placement of photovoltaic arrays that can reduce cleanup c

solar energy systems as part of redevelopment, and solar manufacturing plants on brownfields.” For more information, see 

brownfields/partners/brightfd.htm.
43 

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

MASSACHUSETTS 

Incentive Specifics Sector 

New Generation Energy - Community 

Solar Lending Program $5,000 - $100,000 Private 

Massachusetts DOER - Solar 

Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs) $300 - $600 (per MWh) Both 

Mass Energy Consumers Alliance - 

Renewable Energy Certificate Incentive Both 

Renewable Energy Property Tax 

Exemption 100% exemption for 20 years Private 

CEC - Commonwealth Solar II Rebates 

$5,500 (per host customer), up to 

$250,000 per parent company Both 

CEC - Commonwealth Solar Stimulus 

$162,500 per project (up to $1 million 

for any host customer entity, or parent 

company/organization) Both 

Policy Specifics Sector 

Massachusetts - Net Metering Both 

Renewable Energy Trust Fund Public Benefit Fund Private 

Renewable Portfolio Standard 

In-state PV: Mandated Target of 400 

MW 

NORTH CAROLINA 

Incentive Specifics Sector 

Renewable Energy Tax Credit 

(Corporate) 35% / $2.5 million per installation Private 

Local Option - Revolving Loan Program 

for Renewable Energy and Energy 

Efficiency Interest rate can be no more than 8% Private 

Local Option - Clean Energy Financing Debt repaid via property assessment Private 

Renewable Energy Tax Credit 

(Personal) 35% / $2.5 million per installation Private 

NC GreenPower Production Incentive 

Payments contingent on program 

success Both 

Progress Energy Carolinas - SunSense 

Commercial PV Incentive Program $0.18/kWh for 20 years Both 

TVA - Generation Partners Program 

$1000 plus $0.12/kWh above the retail 

rate for solar and $0.03/kWh above the 

retail rate for all other eligible 

renewables Private 

Property Tax Abatement for Solar 

Electric Systems 80% of appraised value Both 

North Carolina Green Business Fund Grant varies Both 

Energy Improvement Loan Program 

(EILP) 

State Loan Program $500,000 

maximum Both 

 
44 

Policy Specifics Sector 

North Carolina - Net Metering 

Renewable Energy and Energy 

Efficiency Portfolio Standard Solar: 0.2% by 2018 

COLORADO 

Incentive Specifics Sector 

Boulder County - ClimateSmart Loan 

Program Commercial: $3,000 - $210,000 Private 

Local Option - Improvement Districts for 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy Improvements Debt repaid via property assessment Both 

Renewable Energy Property Tax 

Assessment Varies Private 

Boulder - Solar Sales and Use Tax 

Rebate 

15% refund on sales and use tax for the 

solar installation Private 

Local Option - Sales and Use Tax 

Exemption for Renewable Energy 

Systems Varies Private 

Sales and Use Tax Exemption for 

Renewable Energy Equipment 100% Both 

New Energy Economic Development 

Grant Program Competitive grant, Recovery Act funded Private 

Xcel Energy - Solar*Rewards Program 

$2/W DC with a maximum rebate of 

$200,000; REC payments will step 

down over time as certain MW levels 

are reached for each system 

classification. Private 

Policy Specifics Sector

Colorado - Net Metering Private 

Mandatory Green Power Option for 

Large Municipal Utilities 

Allows retail customers the choice of 

supporting emerging renewable 

technologies Both 

Boulder - Climate Action Plan Fund Public Benefits Fund Private 

Renewable Energy Standard 

Solar-electric (IOUs only): 4% of annual 

requirement (0.8% of sales in 2020); 

half of solar-electric requirement must 

be located on-site at customers' 

facilities 

Solar, Wind and Energy-Efficiency 

Access Laws 

Source: Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy and Efficiency 2009 
45 

Table B-7. Key Policy Comparison for Subject States 

RPS Colorado Massachusetts North Carolina 

Policy In Place Yes Yes Yes 

Effective Date 12/1/04 4/1/02 2/29/08 

Targets 20% by 2020; Solarelectric: 4% of 

annual requirement 

15% by 2020 and an 

additional 1% each year 

thereafter; in-state PV 

mandated target of 

400MW 

12.5% of 2020 retail 

electricity sales by 2021 

with .2% from solar 

PBF Colorado Massachusetts North Carolina 

Policy In Place City of Boulder Only Yes No 

Effective Date 4/1/07 3/1/98 N/A 

Charge Maximum tax rates 

for electricity 

customers: 

Residential: 

$0.0049/kWh 

Commercial: 

$0.0009/kWh 

Industrial: 

$0.0003/kWh 

$0.0005 per kilowatt-hour 

(0.5 mill/kWh) in 2003 

and in each following 

year 

N/A 

NET METERING Colorado Massachusetts North Carolina 

Policy In Place Yes Yes Yes 

Effective Date 7/2/06 1982 10/20/05 

System Capacity 120% of the 

customer's average 

annual consumption 

2 MW for "Class III" 

systems; 1 MW for "Class 

II" systems; 60 kW for 

"Class I" systems 

1 MW 

REC Ownership Customer owns 

RECs (must be 

relinquished to utility 

for 20 years in 

exchange for 

incentives) 

Customer owns RECs Utility owns RECs 

(unless customer 

chooses to net meter 

under an unfavorable 

demand tariff) 

TAX INCENTIVES 

APPLICABLE TO PV 

Colorado Massachusetts North Carolina 

Property-Amount 

varies depending on 

rate set annually by 

the Division of 

Property Taxation 

Property-100% 

exemption for 20 years 

Corporate 35%

Property – 85% of 

appraised value

Effective Date 2001 1984 Corporate 1/1/09 

Property 7/1/08 

Source: Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy and Efficiency 2010c
F1147-E(10/2008)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

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

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

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents 

should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

August 2010

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Report

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Feasibility Study of Economics and Performance of Solar 

Photovoltaics in Nitro, West Virginia: A Study Prepared in 

Partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency for the REPowering America’s Land Initiative: Siting Renewable Energy on 

Potentially Contaminated Land and Mine Sites

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-08-GO28308

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

L. Lisell and G. Mosey

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/TP-6A2-48594

5e. TASK NUMBER

WFD3.1000

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

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

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Blvd.

Golden, CO 80401-3393

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

NREL/TP-6A2-48594

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service

U.S. Department of Commerce

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

This report summarizes a feasibility study of solar photovoltaic (PV) installations on brownfields in or near the City of 

Nitro, West Virginia. The study was performed for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in accordance with the 

RE-Powering America’s Land initiative. The report includes estimates of the cost, performance, and site impacts of 

crystalline silicon (fixed axis), crystalline silicon (single axis tracking), and thin film (fixed axis) for eight sites in or near 

Nitro. The report also summarizes job creation if these sites were used for PV installations.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

solar photovoltaics; solar PV; crystalline silicon; thin film; brownfields; feasibility; Nitro, West Virginia; cost; system 

performance; economics; jobs; financing; electrical rates; impacts; EPA, RE-Powering America’s Land

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT

UL

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT

Unclassified

b. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE

Unclassified 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18