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

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the 

Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Feasibility Study of Economics 

and Performance of Solar 

Photovoltaics at the Brisbane 

Baylands Brownfield Site in 

Brisbane, California

A Study Prepared in Partnership with the 

Environmental Protection Agency for the 

RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative: 

Siting Renewable Energy on Potentially 

Contaminated Land and Mine Sites

James Salasovich, Jesse Geiger, Victoria 

Healey, and Gail Mosey

Produced under direction of the Environmental Protection Agency

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

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

Technical Report

NREL/TP-7A40-57357

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

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

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

15013 Denver West Parkway

Golden, CO 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

Feasibility Study of Economics 

and Performance of Solar 

Photovoltaics at the Brisbane 

Baylands Brownfield Site in 

Brisbane, California 

A Study Prepared in Partnership with the 

Environmental Protection Agency for the 

RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative: 

Siting Renewable Energy on Potentially 

Contaminated Land and Mine Sites

James Salasovich, Jesse Geiger, Victoria 

Healey, and Gail Mosey

Prepared under Task No. WFD3.1001

Technical Report

NREL/TP-7A40-57357

April 2013
NOTICE

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

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

**The tables and figures in this report are limited to use in this report only and are not to be further disseminated 

or used without the permission of the sources cited.**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

The U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) thanks the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its interest in securing NREL’s technical 

expertise. In particular, NREL and the assessment team for this project are grateful to the

Brisbane Baylands facility managers, engineers, and operators for their generous assistance 

and cooperation. 

Special thanks go to Cara Peck, Jessica Trice, Shea Jones, and Lura Matthews from EPA; Katie 

Brown, AAAS Science & Technology Policy fellow hosted by EPA; and Clay Holstine, Randy 

Breault, John Swiecki, and Caroline Cheung from the City of Brisbane for hosting the site visit.

The authors would also like to thank Joe Peters and Jonathan Scharfman from Universal Paragon 

Corporation and Anja Miller, Anthony Attard, Michele Salmon, Jennifer Martin, and Cris Hart 

from the Committee for Renewable Energy on the Baylands (CREBL). 
iv

List of Acronyms 

AC alternating current

BOS balance of system

CEC California Energy Commission

CPUC California Public Utilities Commission

CREBL Committee for Renewable Energy on the Baylands

DC direct current

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control 

ECM energy conservation measures 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FTE full-time equivalent

HVAC heating, ventilation, air conditioning 

ITC investment tax credit

LCOE levelized cost of energy

JEDI Jobs and Economic Development Impact 

NEG net excess generation

NPV net present value

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

O&M operations and maintenance 

PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric

PPA power purchase agreement

PV photovoltaic 

REC renewable energy certificates

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

SAM System Advisor Model 

SPE special purpose entity

SSA solar services agreement

TOU time of use 

UPC Universal Paragon Corporation 

VNM virtual net metering

VOC volatile organic compounds 
v 

Executive Summary

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

America’s Land initiative, selected the Brisbane Baylands site in Brisbane, California, for a 

feasibility study of renewable energy production. The U.S. Department of Energy’s National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) provided technical assistance for this project. The 

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

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

recommends financing options that could assist in the implementation of a PV system at the site. 

This study did not assess the current environmental conditions at the site but assumes that 

conditions are not constraining. 

The Brisbane Baylands site is located in the western part of San Francisco Bay and the site is 

divided into two areas. The west side of the site was used by the Southern Pacific Railroad for 

freight rail operations from 1914 to 1960, and the east side of the site was used as a municipal 

landfill for household waste from the 1930s until its closure in 1967. Since the landfill closure, 

the site has been used as a clean fill operation for construction sites in the area.1 The City of 

Brisbane and the owner of the property understand that on-site renewable energy generation will 

be integral to the development of the land.2

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

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

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

brownfield site impact the feasibility of a PV system. Based on the current assessment of these 

factors, the Brisbane Baylands is suitable for deployment of a large-scale PV system. 

The Brisbane Baylands site is approximately 684 acres, and there are two options for developing 

the site that include the Universal Paragon Corporation’s (UPC) “Developer Option” and the 

Committee for Renewable Energy on the Baylands’ (CREBL) “Renewable Energy Alternative.” 

The Developer Option has more area allotted for rooftop PV and the Renewable Energy 

Alternative has more area allotted for ground-mounted PV. The Developer Option has 

approximately 24.7 acres appropriate for installation of a ground-mounted PV system and 

257.4 acres appropriate for constructing buildings, which is derived from the pre-design 

drawings provided by the UPC. Of the 257.4 acres available for buildings, 50% is assumed to be 

useable for the installation of roof-mounted PV, and the remaining 50% is assumed to be used 

for roads, green space, and rooftop mechanical equipment. 

The Renewable Energy Alternative has approximately 134.2 acres appropriate for installation of 

a ground-mounted PV system and 60.7 acres appropriate for constructing buildings, which is 

derived from pre-design drawings provided by CREBL. Of the 60.7 acres available for buildings, 

38% (1 million square feet) is assumed to be useable for the installation of roof-mounted PV, and 

the remaining 62% is assumed to be used for roads, green space, and rooftop mechanical 

equipment. 

 

1 http://www.brisbanebaylands.com/environmentalcleanup/. Accessed July 2012. 2 http://www.epa.gov/oswercpa/docs/r09-11-004_brisbane.pdf. Accessed July 2012.
vi 

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

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

potential if the total feasible area is used for both the Developer Option and the Renewable 

Energy Alternative. These options are considered the broadest range of PV implementation for 

the site under the two development scenarios and do not represent all of the intermediate options 

available. It should also be noted that the purpose of this report is not to determine how to 

develop the site but to investigate both options and present the results in an unbiased manner. 

The economic feasibility of a potential PV system on the Brisbane Baylands site depends greatly 

on the purchase price of the electricity produced and incentives available to the PV project. The 

economics of the potential system were analyzed using the average Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company (PG&E) June 2012 electric rate schedule of $0.1179/kWh for commercial entities. 

There are currently three incentives available to the project from the state and federal levels.

Table ES-1 shows the current incentives considered with the incentive amount and the indicated 

ending criteria for each incentive. 

Table ES-1. Summary of Incentives Evaluated3

Incentive Title Modeled Value Expected End 

California Property Tax Incentive 100% of Property Value 12/31/2016

California Solar Initiative $0.025/kWh Re-funded in 12/2011

Business Energy Investment Tax Credit (ITC) 30% of installed cost 12/31/2016

The community net-metering incentive was not included in the feasibility study but will certainly 

improve economics if developed further. The California Energy Commission’s (CEC) New Solar 

Home Partnership was excluded from the analysis because its applicability is uncertain. If this 

option were pursued and attained, the economics for each scenario would greatly improve. The 

combined quantitative amounts for these incentives are applied to each scenario in Table ES-2. 

All scenarios considered for the site were economically attractive; the Renewable Energy 

Alternative scenario with a single-axis tracking PV system for the ground-mounted portion has 

the highest net present value (NPV). Table ES-2 summarizes the system performance and 

economics of a potential system that would use all available areas that were surveyed at the 

Brisbane Baylands site. Each scenario in the table includes the maximum utilized roof area 

associated with the specified development option and the specified ground-mounted system. The 

table shows the annual energy output from the system along with the number of average 

American households that could be powered by such a system and estimated job creation. 

As indicated in Table ES-2, the different systems are expected to have a payback of 12.68–13.72 

years and an NPV of $1.5 million to $4.1 million for a 23–28 MW PV system producing 

 

3 DSIRE: Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency. http://www.dsireusa.org/. Accessed 

July 2012.
vii 

approximately 42.4–45 GWh annually. This includes the current cost of energy, expected 

installation cost, site solar resource, and existing incentives for the proposed PV system. This 

savings and payback is deemed reasonable and as such, a solar PV system represents a viable 

reuse for the site. 

Table ES-2. Brisbane Baylands PV System Summary
viii

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.1 Brisbane Baylands Site PV System ............................................................................................. 13

4.2 Utility Resource Considerations .................................................................................................. 16

4.3 Useable Acreage for PV System Installation ............................................................................... 16

4.4 PV Site Solar Resource ................................................................................................................ 16

4.5 Brisbane Baylands Energy Usage ................................................................................................ 18

4.5.1 Current Energy Use ........................................................................................................ 18

4.5.2 Estimated Future Energy Use and Net-Zero Energy Potential ....................................... 19

4.5.3 Net Metering ................................................................................................................... 19

4.5.4 Virtual Net Metering ....................................................................................................... 20

5 Economics and Performance ............................................................................................................22

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

5.2 SAM-Forecasted Economic Performance.................................................................................... 23

5.2.1 Fixed-Axis Versus Single-Axis Tracking ....................................................................... 24

5.2.2 Solar Investor Versus Developer Owned ........................................................................ 24

5.2.3 Renewable Energy Alternative Versus Developer Option ............................................. 25

5.3 Job Analysis and Impact .............................................................................................................. 26

5.4 Financing Opportunities .............................................................................................................. 28

5.4.1 Owner and Operator Financing....................................................................................... 28

5.4.2 Third-Party Developers With Power Purchase Agreements ........................................... 28

5.4.3 Third-Party “Flip” Agreements ...................................................................................... 29

5.4.4 Hybrid Financial Structures ............................................................................................ 29

5.4.5 Solar Services Agreement and Operating Lease ............................................................. 29

5.4.6 Sale/Leaseback ............................................................................................................... 30

5.4.7 Community Solar/Solar Gardens .................................................................................... 30

6 Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................................................31

Appendix A. Assessment and Calculations Assumptions ...................................................................32

Appendix B. Solar Access Measurements..............................................................................................33

Appendix C. Results of the JEDI Model ..................................................................................................34

Appendix D. Results of the System Advisor Model...............................................................................38

Appendix E. Building Energy Modeling ..................................................................................................40

Brisbane Baylands Commercial Office Building Energy Model .......................................................... 40

Brisbane Baylands Light-Industrial Building Energy Model ............................................................... 43

Brisbane Baylands Retail-Building Energy Model ............................................................................... 46

Brisbane Baylands Residential-Building Energy Model ...................................................................... 49
ix

List of Figures

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 6. Aerial view of the Developer Option, showing proposed areas for PV at the Brisbane 

Baylands site (ground-mounted PV in yellow; commercial/retail/light industrial 

rooftop PV in orange; residential rooftop PV in red) ........................................................14

Figure 7. Aerial view of the Renewable Energy Alternative feasible area for PV at the 

Brisbane Baylands site (ground-mounted PV in yellow; commercial and light 

industrial rooftop PV in orange) ........................................................................................15

Figure 8. Views of the feasible area for PV at the Brisbane Baylands site ...................................15

Figure 9. Location of PG&E Martin Substation in relation to the Brisbane Baylands site ...........16

Figure B-1. Solar access measurements for Brisbane Baylands PV site .......................................33

Figure E-1. Brisbane Baylands commercial office-building eQUEST model 

representation .....................................................................................................................41

Figure E-2. Brisbane Baylands commercial-office eQUEST results for annual energy use .........43

Figure E-3. Brisbane Baylands light-industrial building eQUEST model representation .............44

Figure E-4. Brisbane Baylands light-industrial eQUEST results for annual energy use ...............46

Figure E-5. Brisbane Baylands retail-building eQUEST model representation ............................47

Figure E-6. Brisbane Baylands retail-building eQUEST results for annual energy use ................49

Figure E-7. Brisbane Baylands residential-building eQUEST model representation ....................50

Figure E-8. Brisbane Baylands residential-building eQUEST results for annual energy use .......52
x 

List of Tables

Table ES-1. Summary of Incentives Evaluated ............................................................................. vi

Table ES-2. Brisbane Baylands PV System Summary ................................................................. vii

Table 1. Energy Density by Panel and System ..............................................................................10

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

Table 3. Site Identification Information and Specifications ..........................................................17

Table 4. Performance Results for 20-Degree Fixed-Tilt PV .........................................................18

Table 5. Performance Results for 20-Degree Single-Axis Tracking PV .......................................18

Table 6. Installed System Cost Assumptions .................................................................................22

Table 7. Summary of Incentives Evaluated ...................................................................................23

Table 8. Results Summary of Simulations .....................................................................................24

Table 9. PV System Summary .......................................................................................................26

Table 10. JEDI Analysis Assumptions ..........................................................................................27

Table A-1. Cost, System, and Other Assessment Assumptions ....................................................32

Table C-1. JEDI Project Data Summary ........................................................................................34

Table C-2. JEDI Local Economic Impacts Summary ....................................................................35

Table C-3. JEDI Detailed PV Project Data Costs ..........................................................................36

Table C-4. JEDI PV System Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs ......................................37

Table D-1. SAM Modeling Assumptions ......................................................................................38

Table E-1. Brisbane Baylands Commercial Office Building eQUEST Summary Information ....42

Table E-2. Brisbane Baylands Light-Industrial Building eQUEST Summary Information ..........45

Table E-3. Brisbane Baylands Retail-Building eQUEST Summary Information .........................48

Table E-4. Brisbane Baylands Residential-Building eQUEST Summary Information .................51
1 

1 Study and Site Background

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

America’s Land initiative, selected the Brisbane Baylands site in Brisbane, California, for 

a feasibility study of renewable energy production. The U.S. Department of Energy’s 

(DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) provided technical assistance for 

this project. The purpose of this report is to assess the site for a possible photovoltaic 

(PV) system installation and estimate the cost, performance, and site impacts of different 

PV options. In addition, the report recommends financing options that could assist in the 

implementation of a PV system at the site. This study did not assess environmental 

conditions at the site. 

The Brisbane Baylands is located in Brisbane, California, which is located by the western 

San Francisco Bay. Brisbane has a population of 4,282 as of the 2010 U.S. Census. 

Brisbane has a coastal temperate climate with limited temperature variations throughout 

the day. The summers are mild with temperatures typically in the 60o

F range, and the 

winters are cool with temperatures in the 50oF range. The winters tend to have the most 

precipitation. Brisbane has on average 261 days of sunshine each year. Pacific Gas & 

Electric (PG&E) is the utility that provides electricity to Brisbane; it is a regulated utility. 

The Brisbane Baylands site is approximately 684 acres and is located to the north of the 

town and on the west side of the San Francisco Bay with the California State 

Highway 101 to the east and the Caltrain light rail running down the center of the site. 

There are two options for developing the site that include the Universal Paragon 

Corporation’s (UPC) “Developer Option” and the Committee for Renewable Energy on 

the Baylands’ (CREBL) “Renewable Energy Alternative.” The Developer Option has 

more area allotted for rooftop PV and the Renewable Energy Alternative has more area 

allotted for ground-mounted PV. 

The west side of the site was used by the Southern Pacific Railroad for freight rail 

operations from 1914 to 1960, and the east side of the site was used as a municipal 

landfill for household waste from the 1930s until its closure in 1967. Since the landfill 

closure, the site has been used as a clean fill operation for construction sites in the area.4

The City of Brisbane and the owner of the property, UPC, are interested in developing 

this underused land as a mixed-use community that has adequate access to regional 

transportation and on-site renewable energy generation.5

The area to the west of the Caltrain line that was used by the Southern Pacific Railroad is 

contaminated with petroleum products, heavy metals, and volatile organic compounds 

(VOC). The northern portion of this area has VOC groundwater contamination, while the 

southern portion of this area has contaminated soil caused by petroleum hydrocarbons. 

The area to the east of the Caltrain line that was used as a household landfill contains no 

hazardous waste. This area was used for 35 years to dispose of household, commercial, 

and shipping waste and to also dispose of construction debris and sewage. The San Mateo 

County Health Services Agency − Environmental Health Division, the California 

 

4 http://www.brisbanebaylands.com/environmentalcleanup/. Accessed July 2012. 5 http://www.epa.gov/oswercpa/docs/r09-11-004_brisbane.pdf. Accessed July 2012.
2 

Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Department of Toxic Substances 

Control (DTSC), and the City of Brisbane have jurisdiction over this area. This area is 

currently covered with 30 feet of clean fill dirt and is used for the disposal of clean 

construction debris.6 All of the seepage that flows through the site flows toward the 

lagoon is pumped and treated. There is methane gas production at the site, which is 

currently flared, and the amount of methane gas being produced is declining. 

The closest electrical tie-in location is at the PG&E Martin Substation at 3150 Geneva 

Avenue, Brisbane, California. The substation is located right across the street from the 

Brisbane Baylands site, which could make it an ideal interconnection location for a PV 

system. A detailed interconnection study will need to be performed through PG&E to 

determine the feasibility of utilizing the Martin Substation as a tie-in point for a PV 

system. The site is planned to have buildings, but the extent of the build-out has not been 

determined. The buildings on the site are potential off-takers of the electricity produced 

by a PV system. 

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

conducted a site visit on Tuesday, January 31, 2012, to gather information integral to this 

feasibility study. The team considered information such as solar resource, transmission 

availability, community acceptance, and ground conditions. 

 

6 http://www.brisbanebaylands.com/environmentalcleanup/. Accessed August 2012.
3 

2 Development of a PV System on Brownfields

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

benefits for siting PV facilities on brownfields, noting that they: 

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

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

residential redevelopment and might be adequately zoned for renewable energy

• Generally are located near existing roads and energy transmission or distribution 

infrastructure

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

cleanup costs or low real estate development demand

• Can provide job opportunities in urban and rural communities 

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

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

With these potential benefits, PV can provide a viable, beneficial reuse option, in many 

cases, generating significant revenue on a site that would otherwise go unused. 

The Brisbane Baylands is owned by UPC, which is interested in potential revenue flows 

on the site. For many brownfield sites, the local community has significant interest in the 

redevelopment of the site, and community engagement is critical to match future reuse 

options to the CREBL vision for the site. For the Brisbane site, the vision of the 

community group does not completely align with the vision of the developer, but both 

parties have similar interests in having buildings on the site along with on-site renewable 

energy generation. The purpose of this study is to analyze both options so that an 

informed decision can be made on how to best utilize the site. 

Understanding opportunities studied and realized by other similar sites demonstrates the 

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

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

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

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

Solar project was completed in 2010 and is a 10-MW single-axis tracking system.7

 

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

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

the site and should work to enhance the overall value of the property. There is potential to 

build residential, commercial, and light industrial buildings on the site as the community 

sees fit. There is also the potential to create open space areas and parks. The potential to 

utilize the methane gas for energy production could be investigated. It should be noted 

that there is a 30-meter tower at the site with an anemometer, and a detailed wind 

feasibility study was done at the site using over one year’s worth of wind data collected at 

 

7 http://www.exeloncorp.com/PowerPlants/exeloncitysolar/Pages/Profile.aspx. Accessed July 2012.
4 

the site. The study determined that large-scale wind is not feasible at the Brisbane 

Baylands site. 

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

sources for power generation instead of fossil fuels, including: 

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

portfolio 

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

environment 

• Deployment of renewable energy bolsters national energy independence and 

increases domestic energy security

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

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

• Generating energy without harmful emissions or waste products can be 

accomplished through renewable energy sources.
5 

3 PV Systems

3.1 PV Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 1. Generation of electricity from a PV cell

Source: EPA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

commonly sold back to the electricity grid.

(-)

(+)

-

- -

-

Electron

Current flow

-

Solar cell

- - -

Load
6 

3.2 Major System Components

Figure 2. Ground-mounted array diagram

Source: NREL

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

• PV modules 

• Inverter

• Balance-of-system (BOS) components (e.g., mounting system and wiring). 

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

3.2.1 PV Module

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

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

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

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

3.2.1.1 Crystalline Silicon

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

technology builds on a strong industry on both material supply (silicon industry) and the 

product maturity side. This technology has been demonstrated for a consistent and high 

efficiency over 30 years in the field. The performance degradation, a reduction in power 

generation due to long-term exposure, is under 1% per year. Silicon modules have a 

lifespan in the range of 25–30 years but can keep producing energy beyond this range. 
7 

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

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

This range of efficiencies represents significant variation among the crystalline silicon 

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

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

manufacturing technique. Crystalline silicon panels are widely used worldwide. 

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

installed on tracking mounting systems.

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

NREL 23816 and (right) SunPower, NREL 13823

3.2.1.2 Thin Film

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

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

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

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

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

rigid constructions that can be used in fixed-tilt or, in some cases, tracking systems. 

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

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

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

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

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

Beck Energy, NREL 14726, and (right) U.S. Coast Guard Petaluma Site, NREL 17395
8 

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

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

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

3.2.2 Inverter

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

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

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

to that frequency. When utility power is not present due to a fault condition, the inverter 

will stop producing AC power to prevent “islanding,” or putting power into the grid 

while utility workers are trying to fix what they assume is a de-energized distribution 

system. This safety feature is built into all grid-connected inverters in the market. 

Electricity produced from the system may be fed to a step-up transformer to increase the 

voltage to match the grid.

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

different types of installations.

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

inverters tend to be cheaper on a capacity basis and provide high efficiency and lower 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

typically benefit from micro-inverters. 

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

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

are used. Figure 5 shows a string inverter. 
9 

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

3.2.3 Balance-of-System Components

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

called BOS components, which include: 

• Mounting racks and hardware for the panels 

• Wiring for electrical connections. 

3.2.3.1 Mounting Systems

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

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

3.2.3.1.1 Ground-Mounted Systems

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

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

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

from 90–120 mph range for most areas, or 130 mph or more for areas with hurricane 

potential. Depending on the region, snow and ice loads must also be a design 

consideration for the mounting system. For brownfield applications, mounting system 

designs will be primarily driven by these considerations coupled with settlement 

concerns. 

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

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

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

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

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

tracking systems. 

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

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

slightly. Single-axis tracking, in which the PV panels are rotated on a single axis, can 

increase energy output up to 25% or more. With dual-axis tracking, PV is able to directly 
10 

face the sun all day, potentially increasing output up to 35% or more. Depending on 

underlying soiling conditions, single- and dual-axis trackers may not be suitable due to 

potential settlement effects, which can interfere with the alignment requirements of 

such systems. 

Table 1. Energy Density by Panel and System

System Type Fixed-Tilt Energy Density 

(DC-Watts/ft2

) 

Single-Axis Tracking 

Energy Density

(DC-Watts/ft2

) 

Crystalline Silicon 4.0 3.3

Thin Film 3.3 2.7

Hybrid High 

Efficiency

4.8 3.9

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

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

Contaminated land applications might raise additional design considerations due to site 

conditions, including differential settlement. 

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

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

code requirements with respect to wind and seismic zones. 

3.2.3.1.2 Roof-Mounted Systems

At the Brisbane site, both the Renewable Energy Alternative and the Developer Option 

have available roof area for PV. Installing PV on rooftops has many of the same 

considerations as installing ground-mounted PV systems. Factors, such as available area 

for an array, solar resource, distance to transmission lines, and distance to major roads at 

the site, are just as important in roof-mounted systems as in ground-mounted systems. 

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

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

to repair or replace the roof. 

The development plan at the Brisbane site indicates a significant number of new 

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

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

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

exposure is maximized and reducing the amount of mechanical equipment on the roof, 

can be taken to optimize rooftop PV systems.8

 

8 A solar-ready design guide was published in order to help design teams optimize rooftop PV systems 

when designing buildings, and this guide can be found at http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/46078.pdf. 
11 

Table 2. Rooftop Energy Density by Panel

System Type Fixed-Tilt Energy Density 

(DC-Watts/ft2

) 

Crystalline Silicon 10.0

Thin Film 4.3

3.2.3.2 Wiring for Electrical Connections

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

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

protection. 

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

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

brownfield applications, this wiring might be required to run through above-ground 

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

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

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

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

3.2.3.3 PV System Monitoring 

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

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

inverter. For more sophisticated monitoring and control purposes, environmental data, 

such as module temperature, ambient temperature, solar radiation, and wind speed, can be 

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

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

Data can be stored in the inverter’s memory or in external data loggers for further system 

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

to landfill applications.

Weather stations are typically installed with large-scale PV systems. Weather data, such 

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

comparison of the target and actual system output and performance and identification of 

under-performing arrays. Operators can also use this data to identify required 

maintenance, shade on panels, and accumulating dirt on panels, for example. Monitoring 

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

publicly available, online displays; wall-mounted systems; or even smart phone 

applications. 

3.2.4 Operation and Maintenance

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

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

expected to last 10–15 years. System performance should be verified on a vendorprovided website. Wire and rack connections should be checked annually. This economic 
12 

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

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

replacement of system inverters can be expected in year 15 at a cost of $0.25/W. 

3.3 Siting Considerations

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

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

explained above, PV modules are made up of many individual cells that all produce a 

small amount of current and voltage. These individual cells are connected in series to 

produce a larger current. If an individual cell is shaded, it acts as resistance to the whole 

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

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

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

located. By assessing shading, the NREL team can determine if the area is appropriate for 

solar panels. 

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

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

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

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

utility policy. 
13 

4 Proposed Installation Location Information

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

January 31, 2012. 

4.1 Brisbane Baylands Site PV System

As discussed in Section 1, the Brisbane Baylands site is under the jurisdiction of the San 

Mateo County Health Services Agency - Environmental Health Division, RWQCB, 

DTSC, and the City of Brisbane. 

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

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

unused structures, fences, or electrical poles that can be removed, the un-shaded area can 

be increased to incorporate more PV panels. 

The Brisbane Baylands Site is approximately 684 acres and is relatively flat, but some 

grading will be necessary in some areas to accommodate a PV system. The entire site 

could be feasible for PV after any remediation measures are completed. There are two 

options for developing the site that include UPC’s “Developer Option” and CREBL’s

“Renewable Energy Alternative.” The Developer Option has more area allotted for 

rooftop PV, and the Renewable Energy Alternative has more area allotted for groundmounted PV. While this entire area does not need to be developed at one time due to the 

feasibility of staging installation as land or funding becomes available, calculations for 

this analysis reflect the solar potential if the total feasible area is used for both the 

Developer Option and the Renewable Energy Alternative. It should be noted that the 

purpose of this report is not to determine how to develop the site but to investigate both 

options and present the results in an unbiased manner. 

Figure 6 shows an aerial view of the Developer Option for the Brisbane Baylands site.

The proposed area for ground-mounted PV is shaded in yellow; the proposed area for 

commercial and light industrial building rooftop PV is shaded in orange; and the 

proposed area for residential building rooftop PV is shaded in red. These proposed areas 

are based on design drawings provided by UPC. 
14 

Figure 6. Aerial view of the Developer Option, showing proposed areas for PV at the 

Brisbane Baylands site (ground-mounted PV in yellow; commercial/retail/light industrial 

rooftop PV in orange; residential rooftop PV in red)

Illustration done in Google Earth

As shown, there are large expanses of relatively flat, un-shaded land, which makes it a 

suitable candidate for a ground-mounted PV system. There are also large expanses of 

possible un-shaded rooftop area, which makes it a suitable candidate for rooftop PV 

systems. The proposed area of the site for ground-mounted PV has an area of 24.7 acres. 

The proposed area of the site that is available for commercial/retail/light industrial 

buildings has an area of 189.5 acres, and the area that is available for residential buildings 

has an area of 84.6 acres. For the areas that are available for buildings, it is assumed that 

50% of the available area would be useable for rooftop PV. The remaining 50% of this 

area is assumed to be made up of roads, green space, and rooftop mechanical equipment. 

Figure 7 shows an aerial view of the Renewable Energy Alternative, as proposed by 

CREBL, for the Brisbane Baylands site. The proposed area for ground-mounted PV is 

shaded in yellow; and the proposed area for commercial and light industrial building 

rooftop PV is shaded in orange. The proposed areas designated for ground-mounted and 

rooftop PV are based on design drawings provided by CREBL. 
15 

Figure 7. Aerial view of the Renewable Energy Alternative feasible area for PV at the 

Brisbane Baylands site (ground-mounted PV in yellow; commercial and light industrial 

rooftop PV in orange)

Illustration done in Google Earth

Under the Renewable Energy Alternative development plan, the proposed area of the site 

for ground-mounted PV has an area of 134.2 acres, while the proposed area of the site for 

commercial and light industrial buildings has an area of 60.7 acres. For the areas that are 

available for buildings, it is assumed that 38% of the available area would be useable for 

rooftop PV, which translates to approximately 1 million square feet of roof area for PV. 

The remaining 62% of this area is assumed to be made up of roads, green space, and 

rooftop mechanical equipment. 

PV systems are well suited to the Brisbane, California, area, where the average global 

horizontal annual solar resource−the total solar radiation for a given location, including 

direct, diffuse, and ground-reflected radiation−is 5.45 kWh/m2/day. 

Figure 8 shows various views of the Brisbane Baylands site. 

Figure 8. Views of the feasible area for PV at the Brisbane Baylands site. Photos by Jimmy 

Salasovich, NREL
16 

4.2 Utility Resource Considerations

The closest electrical tie-in location is at the PG&E Martin Substation at 3150 Geneva 

Avenue, Brisbane, California. The location of the PG&E Martin Substation in relation to 

the Brisbane Baylands Site is provided in Figure 9. As shown, the substation is located 

right across the street from the Brisbane Baylands site, which could make it an ideal 

location for a PV system interconnection. A detailed interconnection study will have to 

be performed through PG&E to determine the feasibility of utilizing the Martin 

Substation as a tie-in point for a PV system. The site plans to have buildings, but the 

extent of the build-out has not been determined. The buildings on the site are potential 

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

Figure 9. Location of PG&E Martin Substation in relation to the Brisbane Baylands site

Illustration done in Google Earth

4.3 Useable Acreage for PV System Installation 

Typically, a minimum of 2 useable acres is recommended to site large-scale PV systems. 

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

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

example, eligible space for PV includes under-utilized or unoccupied land, vacant lots, 

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

building rooftops). 

4.4 PV Site Solar Resource

The Brisbane Baylands site has been evaluated to determine the adequacy of the solar 

resource available using both on-site data and industry tools. 
17 

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

points and found a solar access of 90% or higher. Solar access is the amount of un-shaded 

time at the point of measurement over the course of the year. A 90% solar access number 

indicates that 10% of the year there will be shading at the point of measurement when the 

sun is out. The locations for each measurement are intended to capture the highest 

shading for an entire site. All data gathered using this tool is available in Appendix B. 

The predicted array performance was found using PVWatts Version 29 for Brisbane, 

California. Table 3 shows the station identification information, PV system 

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

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

production for each kilowatt so that additional analysis can be performed using the data 

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

Table 3. Site Identification Information and Specifications

Station Identification

Cell ID 174347

State California

Latitude 37.7° N

Longitude 122.4° W

PV System Specifications

DC Rating 1.00 kW

DC-to-AC Derate Factor 0.8 

AC Rating 0.8 kW

Array Type Fixed Tilt 

Array Tilt 20°

Array Azimuth 180°

Energy Specifications

Cost of Electricity $0.1179/kWh

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

California, as calculated by PVWatts. 

 

9 http://www.nrel.gov/rredc/pvwatts/.
18 

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

Month Solar Radiation

(kWh/m2/day)

AC Energy

(kWh)

Energy Value

($)

1 3.07 72 8.49

2 4.08 87 10.26

3 4.90 116 13.68

4 6.01 137 16.15

5 6.61 158 18.63

6 7.09 161 18.98

7 7.26 170 20.04

8 6.65 155 18.27

9 6.05 135 15.92

10 4.87 113 13.32

11 3.70 83 9.79

12 3.04 71 8.37

Year 5.28 1,459 172.02

Table 5 shows the performance results for a 20-degree tilt, single-axis tracking PV 

system in Brisbane, California, as calculated by PVWatts. 

Table 5. Performance Results for 20-Degree Single-Axis Tracking PV

Month Solar Radiation

(kWh/m2

/day)

AC Energy

(kWh)

Energy Value

($)

1 3.66 87 10.26

2 5.01 109 12.85

3 6.13 148 17.45

4 7.61 176 20.75

5 8.47 205 24.17

6 9.00 207 24.41

7 9.33 221 26.06

8 8.50 201 23.70

9 7.65 174 20.51

10 6.10 143 16.86

11 4.50 103 12.14

12 3.69 89 10.49

Year 6.65 1,863 219.65

4.5 Brisbane Baylands Energy Usage

The Brisbane Baylands site currently has buildings on the site that use electricity. There 

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

understand the energy use of the site to aid a full analysis of whether or not energy 

produced would need to be sold or if it could offset on-site energy use.

4.5.1 Current Energy Use

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

or cost data was available for the site. There are plans to build out the site with office, 

light industrial, residential, and retail buildings.
19 

4.5.2 Estimated Future Energy Use and Net-Zero Energy Potential

4.5.2.1 Developer Option

The future energy use of the buildings on the site could be estimated by creating building 

energy models of the various building types, which include commercial, light industrial, 

retail, and residential. It is important to note that buildings were assumed to be all electric 

buildings and to be very energy efficient buildings with tight construction, low lighting 

and equipment energy use, and with air-source heat pump systems. The estimated total 

building area of the site build-out is 14 million square feet. The breakdown of the 

building area by building type was estimated to be 56% commercial buildings, 6% light 

industrial buildings, 7% retail buildings, and 31% residential buildings. Using the energy 

models of the various building types, the total annual energy use of the site is estimated 

to be 72,000 MWh/yr. In order for the site to be net-zero, a 50.5-MW, fixed-tilt PV 

system would have to be installed to offset the energy us of the buildings. This is larger 

than the available area on the site.

4.5.2.2 Renewable Energy Alternative Option

The future energy use of the buildings on the site could be estimated by creating building 

energy models of the various building types, which include commercial and light 

industrial buildings. It is important to note that buildings were assumed to be all electric 

buildings and to be very energy efficient buildings with tight construction, low lighting 

and equipment energy use, and with air-source heat pump systems. The estimated total 

building area of the site build-out is 1 million square feet. The breakdown of the building 

area by building type was estimated to be 46% commercial building, 46% light industrial 

buildings, 8% retail buildings, and 0% residential buildings. Using the energy models of 

the various building types, the total annual energy use of the site is estimated to be 5,800 

MWh/yr. In order for the site to be net-zero, a 4.1-MW, fixed-tilt PV system would have 

to be installed to offset the energy us of the buildings. 

4.5.3 Net Metering

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

request net metering service to any electric consumer that the electric 

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

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

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

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

offset electric energy provided by the electric utility to the electric 

consumer during the applicable billing period. 
20 

California's net-metering law,10 which took effect in 1996, requires utilities to offer net 

metering to all customers with solar and wind-energy systems up to 1 MW. 

Renewable energy certificates (RECs),

11 also known as green certificates, green tags, or 

tradable renewable certificates, are tradable commodities in the United States that 

represent proof of electric energy generation from eligible renewable energy resources 

(i.e., renewable electricity). The RECs that are associated with the electricity produced 

and are used on site remain with the customer-generator. If, however, the customer 

chooses to receive financial compensation for the net excess generation (NEG) remaining 

after a 12-month period, the utility will be granted the RECs associated with only that 

surplus they purchase. 

California does not allow any new or additional demand charges, standby charges, 

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

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

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

assigned. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has explicitly ruled that 

technologies eligible for net metering (up to 1 MW) are exempt from interconnection 

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

Publicly owned utilities could elect to provide co-energy metering, which is the same as 

net metering except that it incorporates a time-of-use (TOU) rate schedule. Customergenerators with systems sized between 10 kW and 1 MW and are subject to TOU rates 

are entitled to return electricity to the system for the same TOU (including real-time) 

price that they pay for power purchases. However, TOU customers who choose to coenergy meter must pay for the metering equipment capable of making such 

measurements. Customer-generators retain ownership of all RECs associated with the 

generation of electricity they use on site. 

4.5.4 Virtual Net Metering

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

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

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

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

boundary. California Assembly Bill 2466 (AB 2466),12 codified as Section 2830 of the 

Public Utilities Code, was signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger in September 

2008 and became effective on January 1, 2009.13

The California State Legislature defined local government to include cities, counties, 

school districts, special districts, political subdivisions, or other local public agencies that 

 

10 For the full text of this bill see, http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/

incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=CA02R&re=1&ee=1. 11 For a description of RECs, see http://apps3.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/

certificates. 12 California Legislature. Assembly Bill No. 2466. (Apr. 28, 2010). Accessed May 1, 2012: 

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2451-2500/ab_2466_bill_20100428_amended_asm_

v98.pdf. 13 For more information about VNM, see http://www.pge.com/b2b/newgenerator/ab2466/. 
21 

are authorized to generate electricity. The legislature decided that the tariff would not be 

available for the state, any agency or department of the state, or any joint powers 

authority. However, PG&E could allow VNM if they choose to. The PG&E customer 

representative for the site customer should be asked if VNM is an option. 

If PG&E allows VNM, energy use for the entire site could be offset by a larger system. 

This would also allow a lower installation cost because all PV could be fed into the 

closest PG&E connection. A “feed-in” meter would be installed and would credit the 

other meters on site. The cost of a new meter and tie-in is assumed to be $10,000 for this 

economic analysis. 
22 

5 Economics and Performance

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

combination of the assumptions and background information discussed previously, as 

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

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

14 

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

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

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

performance model calculates a system's energy output on an hourly basis (sub-hourly 

simulations are available for some technologies). The financial model calculates annual 

project cash flows over a period of years for a range of financing structures for 

residential, commercial, and utility projects.

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

and geothermal power systems. SAM also provides economic estimates for distributed 

energy and central generation projects, economic calculations for both projects that buy 

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

model calculates the cost of generating electricity based on information the user provides 

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

tax credits and incentives, and system specifications. 

5.1 Assumptions and Input Data for Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

market conditions evolve. 

The installed system cost assumptions for this analysis are summarized in Table 6. These 

costs represent high remediation-consideration cost case scenarios for PV installation

price on EPA brownfields. 

Table 6. Installed System Cost Assumptions

System Type Fixed-Tilt

($/Wp)

Single-Axis Tracking

($/Wp)

Baseline system 3.20 3.84

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

the inverter and electrical equipment, as well as the installation cost. The site remediation 

costs are also included. The assumed system costs include estimated taxes and a nationalaverage labor rate but does not include land cost. The cost for electrical tie-in was also 

 

14 For additional information on the System Advisor Model, see https://sam.nrel.gov/cost. 
23 

modeled at $500,000. The economics of grid-tied PV depend on incentives, the cost of 

electricity, the solar resource, and panel tilt and orientation. 

For this analysis, it was assumed that relevant federal incentives are received for taxable 

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

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

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

can be worth about 30% of the initial capital investment. The total potential tax benefits 

to the tax-paying entity can be as high as 45% of the initial system cost. Because state 

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

required to capture tax incentives. See www.dsireusa.org for the most up to date 

incentives. 

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

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

standard assumptions can be found in Appendix A. The electrical utility PG&E is 

expected to supply energy to the site under the A-10 General Demand rate schedule. This 

schedule is, on average over the year, $0.11789/kWh as of June 2012. For the sale of 

electricity, the site is expected to be able to sell the electricity produced over the demand 

of the site at an average rate of $0.09528/kWh. Because there is no current demand on 

site, we modeled that all PV generated electricity would be sold to PG&E at the sale rate.

Once there is a demand on site, the benefits of a PV system will greater than what is 

presented below. For the purposes of modeling how much PV could cover rooftops, we

assumed that with intentional design, 50% of the developed land space could contain PV. 

This roof coverage assumption is based on industry experience in new development. 

PVWatts Version 2 was used to calculate expected energy performance for the system. 

The full list of incentives used in this study can be found on Table 7. The California 

Energy Commission (CEC) - New Solar Homes Partnership and the California 

community net-metering incentives were not included in this study. 

Table 7. Summary of Incentives Evaluated

Incentive Title Modeled Value Expected End 

California Property Tax Incentive 100% of property 

value 12/31/2016

California Solar Initiative $0.025/kWh Re-funded in 

12/2011

Business Energy Investment Tax Credit (ITC) 30% of installed 

cost 31-Dec-16

5.2 SAM-Forecasted Economic Performance

SAM predicts NPV, PPA target price, and levelized cost of energy (LCOE), among other 

economic indicators. According to the modeling software with the given assumptions, 

every scenario for solar development is economically viable. When solely considering the 

solar options, and no other site development opportunities, the single-axis ground-
24 

mounted Renewable Energy Alternative has the highest NPV. Similarly, the single-axis 

option is the best option with a third-party solar investor. All of the different options have 

pros and cons, which will play in deciding the correct path forward. These advantages 

and disadvantages are discussed below. Table 8 shows the results from the 

different options. 

Table 8. Results Summary of Simulations

Cases LCOE ($/kWh) NPV

PPA 

($/kWh)

Crystalline Silicon (Fixed-Tilt) -Renewable 

Energy Alternative $0.0781 $1,544,707 $0.1309

Crystalline Silicon (Single-Axis) -Renewable 

Energy Alternative $0.0728 $4,112,420 $0.1211

Crystalline Silicon (Fixed-Tilt) –Developer’s 

Option $0.0655 $1,594,412 $0.1308

Crystalline Silicon (Single-Axis) –

Developer’s Option $0.0771 $2,066,866 $0.1290

A total of eight scenarios were run for the Brisbane development site to encompass the 

many options available to this site. The independent variables include: CREBL and 

developer site recommendations; fixed and single-axis tracking for the ground portion; 

and third-party developer versus site developer ownership. There are multiple factors that 

go into choosing which scenario to pursue beyond the NPV, PPA, and LCOE.

5.2.1 Fixed-Axis Versus Single-Axis Tracking 

For the Brisbane site, there are two area types that could contain solar panels: roof and 

ground space. Fixed-axis panels will be the system used for all covered roof space 

regardless of how the ground space is utilized. According to the simulations, single-axis

tracking for the ground-mounted system will provide the best payback for a slightly 

lower LCOE. Installation costs could vary from the model due to availability of installers 

and equipment and could change the scenario favorability. Under current assumptions, it 

is the recommendation of the feasibility study to pursue a single-axis system for the 

ground-mounted portions of the Brisbane development site. 

The single-axis tracking system is able to gather a significantly greater portion of the 

sun’s energy but requires a greater amount of land than a fixed-axis system of the same 

size. The fixed-axis system gathers less solar energy, but more panels can be packed 

together than single-axis tracking. The fixed-axis tracking system is also economically 

feasible but not as favorable as the single-axis panels. If the fixed-axis price were to drop 

to about $0.97 below the single-axis price, the fixed-axis tracking system would become 

more favorable from a NPV basis. 

5.2.2 Solar Investor Versus Developer Owned

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

the desire for involvement and the risk appetite of the developer. While ownership of the 
25 

system will bring a high-value payback for the developer, it will also require hiring the 

contractors to permit, build, and maintain the system. A solar investor inherits that risk 

and profit, and the developer in turn will purchase a significant portion of the power for 

the Brisbane development at a lower rate than offered by the utility, PG&E. It is 

recommended by the feasibility study group for the developer to own the system, 

considering the high value that could be gained from incentives. The site would need to 

acquire a PPA price for less than the PG&E utility cost and have the demand to make use 

of the PV-generated electricity.

5.2.3 Renewable Energy Alternative Versus Developer Option 

The site currently has two development options being proposed: the Renewable Energy 

Alternative and Developer options. The major difference between these two options is the 

area available for ground-mounted solar PV and substituted for roof space. The annual 

system production is similar in both cases despite this difference. The applicability of the 

CEC New Solar Homes incentive to the project would greatly shift the favorability toward 

the Developer’s Option with the fixed-axis tracking ground system.

The entire results and summary of inputs to SAM is provided in Appendix D. 

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

in Table 9. 
26 

Table 9. PV System Summary

5.3 Job Analysis and Impact

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

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

models are used.

15 JEDI estimates the economic impacts associated with the construction 

and operation of distributed generation power plants. It is a flexible input-output tool that 

 

15 The JEDI models have been used by DOE, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, NREL, and the Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory, as well as a number of universities. For information on JEDI, see 

http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/jedi/about_jedi.html.
27 

estimates, but does not precisely predict, the number of jobs and magnitude of economic 

impacts that can be reasonably created by the proposed facility. 

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

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

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

the associated construction materials, metal fabrication industry, project management 

support, transportation, and other industries that are required to procure and install the 

complete system. 

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

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

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

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

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

results are considered gross estimates as opposed to net estimates. 

For the Baylands site, the values in Table 10 were used from the Renewable Energy 

Alternative, which has the highest impact on the local economy during construction. 

Table 10. JEDI Analysis Assumptions

Input Assumed Value

Capacity 19,281 kW

Placed-In-Service Year 2013

Installed System Cost $76,847,002

Location Brisbane, CA

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

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

proposed PV system 

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

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

person for one year. Construction period jobs are considered short-term positions that 

exist only during the procurement and construction periods. 

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

proposed system is estimated to support 649 direct and indirect jobs per year for the 

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

the construction period are estimated to be $32,979,500 and total economic output is 

estimated to be $88,363,500. The annual O&M of the new PV system is estimated to 

support 5.8 FTEs per year for the life of the system. The jobs and associated spending are 

projected to account for approximately $332,600 in earnings and $615,100 in economic 

activity each year for the next 25 years. 
28 

5.4 Financing Opportunities

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

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

5.4.1 Owner and Operator Financing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

credits offered. 

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

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

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

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

than others and grant programs for solar are on the decline. Regardless, as tax-exempt 

entities, public entities are unable to benefit directly from the various tax-credit-based 

incentives available to private companies. This has given way to the now common use of 

third-party financing structures, such as the PPA. 

5.4.2 Third-Party Developers With Power Purchase Agreements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wholesale transaction. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

receiving them. The term of a PPA typically varies from 20 to 25 years.
29 

5.4.3 Third-Party “Flip” Agreements 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the tax investor’s remaining interest. 

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

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

would flip to the developer once each investor’s return is met.

5.4.4 Hybrid Financial Structures

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

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

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

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

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

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

Denver and Salt Lake City. 

5.4.5 Solar Services Agreement and Operating Lease

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

predominately used in the municipal and cooperative utility markets due to their

treatment of tax benefits and the rules limiting federal tax benefit transfers from nonprofit to for-profit companies. Under IRS guidelines, municipalities cannot enter capital 

leases with for-profit entities when the for-profit entities capture tax incentives. As a 

result, a number of business models have emerged as a work-around to this issue. One 

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

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

party to accrue the tax credits). The non-profit utility typically purchases the solar 

services with either a one-time up-front payment equal to the turn-key system cost minus 

the 30% federal tax credit or can purchase the services in annual installments. The 

municipality may buy out the system once the third party has accrued the tax credits, but 

due to IRS regulations, the buyout of the plant cannot be included as part of the SSA (i.e., 

the SSA cannot be used as a vehicle for a sale and must be a separate transaction).

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

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

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

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

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

operating lease. At the end of the lease period, and after the tax benefits have been 
30 

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

market value.

5.4.6 Sale/Leaseback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

benefits are exhausted. 

5.4.7 Community Solar/Solar Gardens

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or do not want to install a solar system on their facilities. 

Customer prorated shares of solar projects are acquired through a long-term transferrable 

lease of one or more panels, or they subscribe to a share of the project in terms of a 

specific level of energy output or the energy output of a set amount of capacity. Under 

the customer lease option, the customer receives a billing credit for the number of 

kilowatt-hours their prorated share of the solar project produces each month; it is also 

known as VNM. Under the customer subscription option, the customers typically pay a 

set price for a block of solar energy (i.e., 100 kWh per-month blocks) from the 

community solar project. Other models include monthly energy outputs from a specific 

investment dollar amount, or a specific number of panels. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

solar is known as solar gardens depending on the location (e.g., Colorado). 
31 

6 Conclusions and Recommendations 

The inclusion of PV in the development is an economically feasible project, with many 

different options that will be practical and match the building plans. Installing a PV 

system on the Brisbane development site could potentially generate nearly 45,000 MWh 

annually and represents nearly half of the expected load from the Developer’s Option. 

As summarized in section 5, the SAM economic analysis predicts an NPV and LCOE of 

greater than $1.54 million and less than $0.0780/kWh, respectively, for the different 

cases of developer ownership. In a solar investor/PPA case, the starting year PPA price is 

modeled to be less than $0.1309/kWh in the first year. 

When considering only the economics of installing a PV system, the best scenario 

economically is the single-axis ground system in the Renewable Energy Alternative, in 

which the expected payback period is 12.68 years and could produce the majority of 

electricity needed for the proposed site. This feasibility study does not comment on the 

viability of other development projects on site. The modeled scenarios do not include the 

community net-metering incentive or the CEC new solar homes incentive. All systems 

were favorable without these incentives, and their inclusion will only make the 

economics better.
32 

Appendix A. Assessment and Calculations 

Assumptions

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

Cost Assumptions

Variable Quantity of 

Variable

Unit of Variable

Cost of Site Electricity 0.1179 $/kWh

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

System Assumptions

System Type Annual energy 

kWh/kW

Installed Cost 

($/W)

Energy Density 

(W/sq. ft.)

Ground Fixed 1,459 $3.20 4.0

Ground Single-Axis 1,733 $3.85 3.3

Other Assumptions

1 acre 43,560 ft2

1 MW 1,000,000 W

Ground 

utilization

90% of available 

area
33 

Appendix B. Solar Access Measurements 

Figure B-1. Solar access measurements for Brisbane Baylands PV site
34 

Appendix C. Results of the JEDI Model

Table C-1. JEDI Project Data Summary

Project Location CALIFORNIA 

Year of Construction or Installation 2013

Average System Size - DC Nameplate Capacity (KW) 19,281.0

Number of Systems Installed 1

Project Size - DC Nameplate Capacity (KW) 19,281.0

System Application Utility

Solar Cell/Module Material Crystalline Silicon

System Tracking Single Axis

Total System Base Cost ($/KWDC) $3,986

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

Money Value - Current or Constant (Dollar Year) 2012

Project Construction or Installation Cost $76,847,002

 Local Spending $42,811,099

Total Annual Operational Expenses $8,986,874

 Direct Operating and Maintenance Costs $385,620

 Local Spending $354,770

 Other Annual Costs $8,601,254

 Local Spending $12,725

 Debt Payments $0

 Property Taxes $0
35 

Table C-2. JEDI Local Economic Impacts Summary

Jobs Earnings Output

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

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts

 Construction and Installation Labor 88.7 $5,742.1

 Construction and Installation Related Services 148.9 $6,986.5

 Subtotal 237.5 $12,728.6 $22,993.8

 Module and Supply Chain Impacts

 Manufacturing Impacts 0.0 $0.0 $0.0

 Trade (Wholesale and Retail) 30.6 $1,823.5 $5,489.1

 Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 0.0 $0.0 $0.0

 Professional Services 43.9 $2,209.3 $7,491.0

 Other Services 74.2 $5,429.8 $18,810.3

 Other Sectors 91.5 $2,966.3 $5,786.8

 Subtotal 240.2 $12,429.0 $37,577.4

 Induced Impacts 171.4 $7,821.9 $27,792.3

 Total Impacts 649.1 $32,979.5 $88,363.5

Annual Annual

Annual Earnings Output

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

 Onsite Labor Impacts

 PV Project Labor Only 3.6 $214.9 $214.9

 Local Revenue and Supply Chain Impacts 1.2 $71.0 $234.4

 Induced Impacts 1.0 $46.7 $165.8

 Total Impacts 5.8 $332.6 $615.1

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

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

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

add up due to independent rounding.
36 

Table C-3. JEDI Detailed PV Project Data Costs

CALIFORNIA Purchased Manufactured

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

Materials & Equipment

 Mounting (rails, clamps, fittings, etc.) $3,966,019 100% N

 Modules $25,332,065 100% N

 Electrical (wire, connectors, breakers, etc.) $970,486 100% N

 Inverter $3,767,333 100% N

 Subtotal $34,035,903

Labor

 Installation $5,742,113 100%

 Subtotal $5,742,113

Subtotal $39,778,016

Other Costs

 Permitting $403,919 100%

 Other Costs $8,926,610 100%

 Business Overhead $24,930,495 100%

 Subtotal $34,261,024

Subtotal $74,039,040

Sales Tax (Materials & Equipment Purchases) $2,807,962 100%

Total $76,847,002
37 

Table C-4. JEDI PV System Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs

Cost Local Share

Manufactured 

Locally (Y or N)

Labor

 Technicians $231,372 100%

 Subtotal $231,372

Materials and Services

 Materials & Equipment $154,248 100% N

 Services $0 100%

 Subtotal $154,248

Sales Tax (Materials & Equipment Purchases) $12,725 100%

Average Annual Payment (Interest and Principal) $8,588,529 0%

Property Taxes $0 100%

Total $8,986,874

Other Parameters

Financial Parameters

Debt Financing

 Percentage financed 80% 0%

 Years financed (term) 10

 Interest rate 10%

Tax Parameters

 Local Property Tax (percent of taxable value) 0%

 Assessed Value (percent of construction cost) 0%

 Taxable Value (percent of assessed value) 0%

 Taxable Value $0

 Property Tax Exemption (percent of local taxes) 100%

 Local Property Taxes $0 100%

 Local Sales Tax Rate 8.25% 100%

 Sales Tax Exemption (percent of local taxes) 0%

Payroll Parameters Wage per hour Employer Payroll Overhead

 Construction and Installation Labor

 Construction Workers / Installers $21.39 45.6%

 O&M Labor

 Technicians $21.39 45.6%
38 

Appendix D. Results of the System Advisor Model

Table D-1. SAM Modeling Assumptions

Item PPA/Investor

Municipal 

Purchase Notes

Analysis period 

(years) 25 25 

Inflation 2.50% 2.50%

Real discount rate 5.85% 3% 

Federal tax rate 35% 0%

State tax rate 8% 0% 

Insurance (% of 

installed cost) 0.50% 0.50%

Property tax 0 0 

Construction loan 0 0 

Loan term 15 25 25-year bonds

Loan rate 6% 6% May be lower for bonds

Debt fraction 55% 100%

45%-60% PPA, 100% 

municipal ownership, DSCR of 

~1.3 (>1.2)

Minimum internal 

rate of return 15.00% 15.00%

PPA escalation 

rate 1.50% 1.50% 

Federal 

depreciation

5-year MACRS w/ 

50% 1st year bonus N/A N/A for municipal ownership 

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

Federal

investment tax 

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

Payment 

incentives 0 0 

Degradation 0.50% 0.50%

Availability 100% 100% 

Cost - fixed axis 

per kW $2.79 - $3.20 $2.79 - $3.20

Cost – single-axis 

Tracking per kW $3.35 - $3.84 $3.35 - $3.84
39 

Item PPA/Investor

Municipal 

Purchase Notes

Cost - landfill 

ballasted per kW $3.49 - $4.00 $3.49 - $4.00 

Grid 

interconnection 

cost $ - $ - 

Land cost $ - $ - 

O&M

$30/kW/yr first 15 

yrs & $20 yrs 16-25

$30/kW/yr first 15 

yrs & $20 yrs 16-

26

Derate factor 0.8 0.8 

Fixed tilt 20° 20°

Single-axis tilt 0° 0° 

Acres per MW 

fixed 5.74 5.74 

Acres per MW 

tracking 6.96 6.96 
40 

Appendix E. Building Energy Modeling

Building energy modeling was used to estimate the energy use of the proposed building 

types, which include commercial office, light industrial, retail, and residential buildings. 

Because none of the proposed buildings at the Brisbane Baylands site have been 

designed, the building geometry, construction, lighting, equipment, and HVAC systems 

were all assumed. eQUEST was selected as the building simulation software tool to 

perform the energy modeling of this site. eQUEST is a commercially available interface 

for the DOE-2 hourly building energy simulation program originally developed by the 

DOE. The program is capable of evaluating energy and energy cost savings that can be 

achieved by applying energy conservation measures (ECMs), such as improved envelope 

components, passive heating and cooling strategies, lighting system improvements, and 

HVAC system improvements. The software is commonly used to analyze new 

construction buildings and building retrofits. eQUEST requires a detailed description of 

the building envelope (for thermal and optical properties), internal loads, operating 

schedules, lighting and HVAC system requirements, and utility rate schedules. The major 

benefits of eQUEST include the ease of defining building geometry, space 

characteristics, schedules, HVAC systems, and running parametric analyses to study 

design and retrofit options. Another major benefit of eQUEST is the relatively short 

simulation run-times. 

eQUEST building energy models of the four proposed major building types at the 

Brisbane Baylands site were created. The building construction, lighting, equipment, and 

operating condition of HVAC systems was modeled assuming that the buildings would 

have advanced energy efficiency features and each of the buildings would be all-electric 

buildings that use air-source heat pump systems. The four building types that were 

modeled, which include commercial office, light industrial, retail, and residential, are 

described in detail in the sections below. 

Brisbane Baylands Commercial Office Building Energy Model

A sample commercial office building was modeled in eQUEST. A graphical 

representation of the building energy model developed in eQUEST is shown in 

Figure E-1. The geometry of the building was assumed because none of the commercial 

office buildings on the Brisbane Baylands site have been designed.
41 

Figure E-1. Brisbane Baylands commercial office-building eQUEST model representation

The NREL team assumed advanced energy-efficient building design to develop the 

eQUEST model of the sample commercial office building. The general facility 

characteristics that were modeled are provided in Table E-1. 

Brisbane Commercial Office Building

Sample Building Energy Model 

5 floors - 100,000 ft2
42 

Table E-1. Brisbane Baylands Commercial Office Building eQUEST Summary Information

Brisbane Baylands commercial office building – Brisbane, CA

Project 

 

 

 

 

 

Weather Data TMY2 - San Francisco, CA

Building Type Office Building

Total Number of Buildings 

Modeled 1 

Building Areas 100,000 ft2

Above Grade Floors 5 

Below Grade Floors 0 

Building Footprint 

 

Building Orientation Plan North

Zoning Pattern Perimeter/core

Floor-to-Floor Height 15 ft

Floor-to-Ceiling Height 12 ft

Roof Pitch 0 deg 

Roof 

 

Construction Steel framed 

Roof Metal

Insulation 4” Polyisocyanurate (R-28)

Walls 

 

Construction 4” Concrete

Finish Stone

Insulation 2” Polystyrene (R-9) continuous

R-21 batts

Ground Floor 

Earth Contact 8” Concrete

Infiltration 

 Perimeter 0.10 (CFM/ft2

) 

Floors 

 

 

 

Interior Finish Carpet

Construction 6” Concrete

Concrete Cap None

Exterior Doors 

 Door Type Double pane glass

Exterior Windows

Window Type Double pane glass

U-0.28, SHGC 0.6, Tvis 0.6

Building Operation

 

Schedule 8 hours/day, 5 days/week

Area Type Office, conference rooms, 

corridors, restrooms

Power Density 
43 

Brisbane Baylands commercial office building – Brisbane, CA

 Lighting 0.8 W/ft2

Daylighting Controls

 Plug Loads 0.35 W/ft2

HVAC Systems 

 System Type Air-source heat pump

 System Cooling Source Heat pump – 14 EER

Economizer Temperature/enthalpy based

 Heating System Heat pump – COP 4.0

 Thermostat

Occupied / Unoccupied

Cooling - 73oF / 82oF 

Heating - 70oF / 64oF

Fan Schedules 

 Operation Schedule 10 hours/day, 5 days/week

Figure E-2 presents the eQUEST output for the Brisbane Baylands commercial officebuilding energy model. As shown, lighting energy uses the most energy, followed by 

equipment energy and ventilation fans. 

Figure E-2. Brisbane Baylands commercial-office eQUEST results for annual energy use

Brisbane Baylands Light-Industrial Building Energy Model

A sample light industrial building was modeled in eQUEST. A graphical representation 

of the building energy model developed in eQUEST is shown in Figure E-3. The 

geometry of the building was assumed because none of the light industrial buildings on 

the Brisbane Baylands site have been designed.
44 

Figure E-3. Brisbane Baylands light-industrial building eQUEST model representation

The NREL team assumed advanced energy-efficient building design to develop the 

eQUEST model of the sample light industrial building. The general facility 

characteristics that were modeled are provided in Table E-2. 

Brisbane Light Industrial Building

Sample Building Energy Model 

1 floor - 100,000 ft2
45 

Table E-2. Brisbane Baylands Light-Industrial Building eQUEST Summary Information

Brisbane Baylands light industrial building – Brisbane, CA

Project 

 

 

 

 

 

Weather Data TMY2 - San Francisco, CA

Building Type Light industrial building

Total Number of Buildings 

Modeled 1 

Building Areas 100,000 ft2

Above Grade Floors 1 

Below Grade Floors 0 

Building Footprint 

 

Building Orientation Plan North

Zoning Pattern Perimeter/core

Floor-to-Floor Height 20 ft

Floor-to-Ceiling Height 16 ft

Roof Pitch 0 deg 

Roof 

 

Construction Steel framed 

Roof Built up roof

Insulation 4” Polyisocyanurate (R-28)

Walls 

 

Construction Metal frame

Finish Metal

Insulation 2” Polystyrene (R-9) continuous

R-21 batts

Ground Floor 

Earth Contact 8” Concrete

Infiltration 

 Perimeter 0.10 (CFM/ft2

) 

Floors 

 

 

 

Interior Finish No finish

Construction 8” Concrete

Concrete Cap None

Exterior Doors 

 Door Type Double pane glass

Exterior Windows

Window Type Double pane glass

U-0.28, SHGC 0.6, Tvis 0.6

Building Operation

 

Schedule 8 hours/day, 5 days/week

Area Type Light manufacturing, office, 

corridors, restrooms

Power Density 
46 

Brisbane Baylands light industrial building – Brisbane, CA

 Lighting 0.8 to 1.5 W/ft2

Daylighting Controls

 Plug Loads 0.35 to 2.0 W/ft2

HVAC Systems 

 System Type Air-source heat pump

 System Cooling Source Heat pump – 14 EER

Economizer Temperature/enthalpy based

 Heating System Heat pump – COP 4.0

 Thermostat

Occupied / Unoccupied

Cooling - 73oF / 82oF 

Heating - 70oF / 64oF

Fan Schedules 

 Operation Schedule 10 hours/day, 5 days/week

Figure E-4 presents the eQUEST output for the Brisbane Baylands light-industrial 

building energy model. As shown, lighting energy uses the most energy, followed by 

equipment energy and ventilation fans. 

Figure E-4. Brisbane Baylands light-industrial eQUEST results for annual energy use

Brisbane Baylands Retail-Building Energy Model

A sample retail building was modeled in eQUEST. A graphical representation of the 

building energy model developed in eQUEST is shown in Figure E-5. The geometry of 

the building was assumed because none of the retail buildings on the Brisbane Baylands 

Site have been designed.
47 

Figure E-5. Brisbane Baylands retail-building eQUEST model representation

The NREL team assumed advanced energy-efficient building design to develop the 

eQUEST model of the sample retail building. The general facility characteristics that 

were modeled are provided in Table E-3. 

Brisbane Retail Building

Sample Building Energy Model 

1 floor - 10,000 ft2
48 

Table E-3. Brisbane Baylands Retail-Building eQUEST Summary Information

Brisbane Baylands retail building – Brisbane, CA

Project 

 

 

 

 

 

Weather Data TMY2 - San Francisco, CA

Building Type Retail building

Total Number of Buildings 

Modeled 1 

Building Areas 10,000 ft2

Above Grade Floors 1 

Below Grade Floors 0 

Building Footprint 

 

Building Orientation Plan North

Zoning Pattern Perimeter/core

Floor-to-Floor Height 15 ft

Floor-to-Ceiling Height 15 ft

Roof Pitch 0 deg 

Roof 

 

Construction Steel framed 

Roof Metal roof

Insulation 4” Polyisocyanurate (R-28)

Walls 

 

Construction Metal frame

Finish Metal

Insulation 2” Polystyrene (R-9) continuous

R-21 batts

Ground Floor 

Earth Contact 8” Concrete

Infiltration 

 Perimeter 0.10 (CFM/ft2

) 

Floors 

 

 

 

Interior Finish No finish

Construction 8” Concrete

Concrete Cap. None

Exterior Doors 

 Door Type Double pane glass

Exterior Windows

Window Type Double pane glass

U-0.28, SHGC 0.6, Tvis 0.6

Building Operation

 Schedule 12 hours/day, 7 days/week

Area Type Retail

Power Density 
49 

Brisbane Baylands retail building – Brisbane, CA

 Lighting 1.2 to 1.6 W/ft2

Daylighting Controls

 Plug Loads 0.25 W/ft2

HVAC Systems 

 System Type Air-source heat pump

 System Cooling Source Heat pump – 14 EER

Economizer Temperature/enthalpy based

 Heating System Heat pump – COP 4.0

 Thermostat

Occupied / Unoccupied

Cooling - 73oF / 82oF 

Heating - 70oF / 64oF

Fan Schedules 

 Operation Schedule 14 hours/day, 7 days/week

Figure E-6 presents the eQUEST output for the Brisbane Baylands retail-building energy 

model. As shown, lighting energy uses the most energy, followed by equipment energy 

and ventilation fans. 

Figure E-6. Brisbane Baylands retail-building eQUEST results for annual energy use

Brisbane Baylands Residential-Building Energy Model

A sample multi-family residential building was modeled in eQUEST. A graphical 

representation of the building energy model developed in eQUEST is shown in 

Figure E-7. The geometry of the building was assumed because none of the residential 

buildings on the Brisbane Baylands Site have been designed. 
50 

Figure E-7. Brisbane Baylands residential-building eQUEST model representation

The NREL team assumed advanced energy-efficient building design to develop the 

eQUEST model of the sample multi-family residential building. The general facility 

characteristics that were modeled are provided in Table E-4. 

Brisbane Residential Building

Sample Building Energy Model 

5 floors - 40,000 ft2
51 

Table E-4. Brisbane Baylands Residential-Building eQUEST Summary Information

Brisbane Baylands residential building – Brisbane, CA

Project 

 

 

 

 

 

Weather Data TMY2 - San Francisco, CA

Building Type Multi-family residential building

Total Number of Buildings 

Modeled 1 

Building Areas 40,000 ft2

Above Grade Floors 5 

Below Grade Floors 0 

Building Footprint 

 

Building Orientation Plan North

Zoning Pattern Perimeter/core

Floor-to-Floor Height 11 ft

Floor-to-Ceiling Height 9 ft

Roof Pitch 0 deg 

Roof 

 

Construction Steel framed 

Roof Metal roof

Insulation 4” Polyisocyanurate (R-28)

Walls 

 

Construction Metal frame

Finish Metal

Insulation 2” Polystyrene (R-9) continuous

R-21 batts

Ground Floor 

Earth Contact 8” Concrete

Infiltration 

 Perimeter 0.10 (CFM/ft2

) 

Floors 

 

 

 

Interior Finish No finish

Construction 8” Concrete

Concrete Cap None

Exterior Doors 

 Door Type Double pane glass

Exterior Windows

Window Type Double pane glass

U-0.28, SHGC 0.6, Tvis 0.6

Building Operation

 Schedule 14 hours/day, 7 days/week

Away from 7:00 am to 5:00 pm

Area Type Residential

Power Density 
52 

Brisbane Baylands residential building – Brisbane, CA

 Lighting 0.5 to 0.8 W/ft2

 Plug Loads 0.15 to 0.3 W/ft2

HVAC Systems

 System Type Air-source heat pump

System Cooling Source Heat pump – 14 EER

Economizer Temperature/enthalpy based

Heating System Heat pump – COP 4.0

 Thermostat

Occupied / Unoccupied

Cooling - 73oF / 82oF 

Heating - 70oF / 64oF

Fan Schedules 

 Operation Schedule 14 hours/day, 7 days/week

Figure E-8 presents the eQUEST output for the Brisbane Baylands residential-building 

energy model. As shown, lighting energy uses the most energy, followed by equipment 

energy and ventilation fans. 

Figure E-8. Brisbane Baylands residential-building eQUEST results for annual energy use