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 Snohomish 

County Cathcart Landfill Site in 

Snohomish County, Washington

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

Dan Olis, James Salasovich, Gail Mosey, and 

Victoria Healey

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-7A40-58328

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 Snohomish 

County Cathcart Landfill Site in 

Snohomish County, Washington 

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

Dan Olis, James Salasovich, Gail Mosey, and 

Victoria Healey

Prepared under Task No. WFD3.1001

Technical Report

NREL/TP-7A40-58328

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 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 Snohomish County Cathcart Landfill

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

Special thanks go to Carolyn Gangmark, Lura Matthews, Shea Jones, and Jessica Trice from 

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

Winter from Snohomish County for hosting the site visit. The authors would also like to thank all 

of those who participated and contributed to the site visit, including representatives of 

Snohomish County and Snohomish Public Utility District No. 1. 
iv

List of Acronyms

AC alternating current

BOS balance of system

BPA Bonneville Power Administration

CHP combined heat and power 

DC direct current

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FTE full-time equivalent

JEDI Jobs and Economic Development Impacts 

kW kilowatt

LCOE levelized cost of energy

MW megawatt

NEG net excess generation

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

O&M operations and maintenance

PBI production-based incentive 

PPA power purchase agreement 

PV photovoltaics 

REC renewable energy certificate

RFP request for proposals 

SNOPUD Snohomish County Public Utility District

SAM System Advisor Model 

SPE special purpose entity

SSA solar services agreement

W watt
v 

Executive Summary

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

America’s Land Initiative, selected the Snohomish County Cathcart Landfill site in Snohomish 

County, Washington, for a feasibility study of renewable energy production. The National 

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

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

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

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

This study did not assess environmental conditions at the site. 

The Snohomish County Landfill is a municipal landfill that was built in 1980 and was a state-ofthe-art facility when it was built. The landfill was closed in 1992 and was capped shortly 

thereafter. A leachate collection system and landfill gas extraction system were installed at the 

site. The main contaminants include metals, ammonia nitrogen, chlorine, and sodium.1

Snohomish County is interested in hosting a PV system on its capped landfill at the Cathcart 

Way Operations Center to generate clean, renewable energy. 

Snohomish County has proposed a PV project up to 5 MW in size. However, the feasibility of a 

PV system installed is highly impacted by the available area for an array, solar resource, distance 

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

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

impact the feasibility of a PV system. Based on an assessment of these factors, the Snohomish 

County Cathcart Landfill is physically suitable for deployment of a large-scale PV system, but 

the project is challenged by the county’s low cost of electricity, the site’s relatively low electrical 

load, and the serving utility’s 100-kW net-metering limit. Additionally, at present, a viable thirdparty off-taker for the electricity has not been identified. 

The Snohomish County Cathcart Landfill site is approximately 52 acres with about 15.2 acres

appropriate for installation of a PV system. 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, one 

case in this analysis reflects the solar potential if the total feasible area is used. Based on acreage 

alone, the site could host up to approximately 3 MW of PV. 

The economic feasibility of a potential PV system on the Snohomish County Cathcart Landfill

site depends greatly on the purchase price of the electricity produced. The economics of the 

potential system were analyzed using the current Snohomish County electric rate of $0.075/kWh 

and incentives available to the site. 

Current incentives considered include Snohomish County Public Utility District’s (SNOPUD) 

Solar Express incentive and Washington’s production-based incentives (PBI) offered under the 

Renewable Energy System Cost Recovery Program. The Solar Express incentive provides 

$500/kW installed up to a $10,000 cap. The state’s PBIs vary depending on the project type 

(community or non-community) and whether in-state manufactured components are used. The 

incentives range from $0.15/kWh to $1.08/kWh and are paid annually up to a maximum of 

$5,000/yr per investor through June 2020. 

 

1 http://www.epa.gov/oswercpa/docs/r10-11-004_snohomish_county.pdf. Accessed August 2012.
vi 

As an alternative to the county consuming the electricity produced, a system could sell energy to 

SNOPUD. However SNOPUD’s standard offer under their Small Renewables Program is $0.05–

$0.06/kWh for 5 years, which is well below revenue levels required to recover the cost of the 

system (approximately $0.28/kWh for 25 years). Other third parties might be interested in 

purchasing energy and may warrant future evaluation. A wholesale project might incur 

additional costs. For example, SNOPUD and/or Bonneville Power Authority (BPA) would likely 

add ‘wheeling’ and other charges to the project to transmit the electricity to market.

Within the state’s Renewable Energy Cost Recovery Program, a class of projects categorized as 

“community solar” is eligible for the highest PBI. Community solar is administered by the 

hosting site’s serving utility. By program rules, the maximum project size is 75 kW and the total 

obligated program size for each utility is based on the utility’s total sales. The Snohomish 

County Landfill site is served by SNOPUD and the PUD’s total community solar program 

obligated capacity is approximately 108 kW. The program has an estimated available capacity of 

86 kW remaining. 

Table ES-1 summarizes the system performance and economics of systems of various sizes and 

benefiting from various incentives. System cost is the total installed cost, including panels, 

hardware, wiring, inverters, engineering, permits, installation, and utility interconnection. The 

table shows the annual energy output from each system, the number of average American 

households that could be powered, and estimated job creation. 

The most conventional approach is for the county to purchase a system with county-appropriated 

funds. A 100-kW system would qualify for net metering (SNOPUD’s maximum net-metering 

limit) and be eligible for two modest incentives, SNOPUD’s $10,000 Solar Express incentive 

and the state’s Renewable Energy Cost Recovery Program PBI that would cap at $5,000/yr for 

6 years. This system has a simple payback of 72 years and is shown in Table ES-1 as “noncommunity solar.” 

A project that qualifies as a community solar project under the state’s Renewable Energy Cost 

Recovery Program can achieve a 25-year payback if the PBI is maximized by using Washingtonmade solar panels and inverters. There are currently 10 community solar projects in Washington 

and one in SNOPUD’s service territory. Community solar projects are complicated and can be 

difficult to execute. SNOPUD representatives warn that development of a community solar 

project can take up to 2 years. Incentive payout under the Renewable Energy Cost Recovery 

Program expires in June 2020, so the longer it takes to develop a project, the worse the 

economics become. Community solar projects developed to date have likely used panels and 

inverters made in Washington because the higher PBI available for these system types greatly 

improves economics, a payback of 48 years using the lower PBI versus 25 years with the higher 

PBI when locally fabricated components are used. 

A third community solar scenario was explored that exploits federal tax incentives to improve 

economics. However, this could be a hypothetical case because it is not known to the author of 

this report if such an arrangement is legal. In addition, a project structure of this type would 

certainly add complexity and might be impractical to execute even if legally permissible. This is 

presented in the table as “community solar with WA inverters and modules, $1.08/kWh for 
vii 

6 years and federal tax incentives” and has an instant payback (0 years) because under this 

scenario, the county would not have to front any capital and would receive electricity at no cost. 

As indicated in Table ES-1, system paybacks have a wide range (0–74 years). However, 

paybacks between 25 years and 74 years are most likely for a project developed on the 

Snohomish County Cathcart Landfill. Although the PV panels and rack structure have an 

expected lifetime of 25 years or more, from a strictly economic perspective, a project with a 

simple payback of 25 years is not a good investment; it would be cheaper for the county to 

continue buying electricity from their utility provider than to invest in a PV system. 

Table ES-1. Snohomish County Cathcart Landfill PV System Summary

Table ES-1 also includes a 3-MW system, the estimated maximum size that could fit on the site. 

This case is hypothetical in that the county’s current electrical load at Cathcart is 292 kW. A 

3-MW system would produce more energy than the county could use, and therefore Snohomish 

County would not benefit from the added costs. However, because the county’s current 292-kW 

load is greater than the 100-kW net-metering limit, the county may be able to install a system 

greater than 100 kW but without the benefit of net metering. A system greater than 100 kW 

would not qualify for SNOPUD’s Solar Express incentive, so the economics would be slightly 

impacted. Also, when a system is operating without net metering, any energy that is generated at 

any moment in excess of the site’s load at that moment will flow back out into the utility’s 

system, and the system owner will not get any credit for that excess energy generated. A careful 

analysis of the moment-by-moment electrical demand at Carthcart Way Operations Center is 

necessary to determine if and how much excess energy a system greater than the 100-kW net-
viii

metering limit may send to the utility to determine what size would be appropriate and what 

impact the size will have on overall economic viability. However, the economics will not be 

better than the 74-year payback presented in the table for the 3-MW case. Costs and utility 

savings for any system greater than 100 kW are proportional to the values shown for a 

3-MW system. 

County representatives have indicated that additional Snohomish County development near the 

landfill will increase the county’s power demand nearby. There are also county schools 

(0.6 miles) and a park (1.0 miles) in the vicinity of the landfill that could use energy generated 

from a large PV system installed on the landfill. It is not practical, however, to distribute energy 

generated from a system to a number of different loads located 0.6 miles to 1 mile from the 

system. This would add costs and extend payback periods beyond 74 years. Virtual net metering 

is a policy alternative to this scenario that allows aggregation of multiple meter amounts paid by 

a customer to be credited by energy generated by a system located elsewhere. Washington’s netmetering law allows virtual net metering, but the aggregation maximum limit is currently 

100 kW per customer. Because the estimate provided by Snohomish County is that the current 

county loads in the vicinity, plus those from planned future build-out in the area, will have an 

average annual demand of 4.7 MW, the county would be able to build a 3-MW system on the 

landfill and make use of all energy produced if the virtual-net-metering limit were significantly 

increased to 3 MW or greater. Under this scenario, given current system costs and energy costs 

in the region, system paybacks would be 74 years as shown in Table ES-1 for a 3-MW system.
ix

Table of Contents

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

2 Development of a PV System on Landfills......................................................................................... 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 ..................................................................................................................... 11

4 Proposed Installation Location Information .................................................................................... 12

4.1 Snohomish County Cathcart Landfill Site PV System .................................................................. 12

4.2 Utility Considerations .................................................................................................................... 13

4.3 Useable Acreage for PV System Installation ................................................................................. 14

4.4 PV Site Solar Resource .................................................................................................................. 14

4.5 Snohomish County Cathcart Landfill Energy Usage ..................................................................... 15

4.5.1 Current Energy Use .......................................................................................................... 16

4.5.2 Net Metering ..................................................................................................................... 18

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

5 Economics and Performance............................................................................................................ 20

5.1 Available Incentives....................................................................................................................... 20

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

5.3 SAM Forecasted Economic Performance ...................................................................................... 22

5.3.1 Case 1 ................................................................................................................................ 23

5.3.2 Case 2 Through Case 4 ..................................................................................................... 23

5.3.3 Summary of the Economic Forecast Results .................................................................... 25

5.3.4 Off-Take, System Size, and Economic Summary............................................................. 27

5.4 Job Analysis and Impact ................................................................................................................ 31

5.5 Financing Opportunities................................................................................................................. 32

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

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

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

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

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

5.5.6 Sales/Leaseback ................................................................................................................ 34

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

6 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................... 36

Appendix A. Provided Site Information .................................................................................................. 37

Appendix B. Assessment and Calculations Assumptions ................................................................... 42

Appendix C. Solar Access Measurements ............................................................................................. 43

Appendix D. Results of the System Advisor Model .............................................................................. 47

Appendix E. Results of the JEDI Model for 75-kW Community Solar and Site Maximum 3-MW 

System ................................................................................................................................................. 50

Appendix F. Contact Information for Local Incentives and Programs................................................ 57
x 

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 feasible area (green) for PV at the Snohomish County Cathcart 

Landfill site (south is to the left in this image) ........................................................................12

Illustration done in Google Earth ...................................................................................................12

Figure 7. Views of the feasible area for PV at the Snohomish County Landfill ...........................13

Figure A-1. Aerial view of site ......................................................................................................37

Figure A-2. Existing infrastructure site map ..................................................................................38

Figure A-3. Sustainable Cathcart proposed project .......................................................................39

Figure A-4. Gas collection system at Snohomish County Landfill ...............................................39

Figure A-5. Tree height in relation to landfill elevation ................................................................40

Figure A-6. Garbage depth profiles ...............................................................................................40

Figure A-7. Snohomish County Landfill topography ....................................................................41

Figure A-8. Height above ground surface map ..............................................................................41

Figure C-1. Solar access measurements for south end of Snohomish County Cathcart Landfill PV 

site, at top edge ........................................................................................................................43

Figure C-2. Solar access measurements for south edge of Snohomish County Cathcart Landfill 

PV site, 30 feet north from edge ..............................................................................................44

Figure C-3. Solar access measurements for center, adjacent to cars, on Snohomish County 

Cathcart Landfill PV site .........................................................................................................45

Figure C-4. Solar access measurements for east edge of Snohomish County Cathcart Landfill PV 

site ............................................................................................................................................46

Figure D-1. Monthly energy produced from 3-MW system, fixed-tilt ..........................................47

Figure D-2. Monthly energy produced from 75-kW system, fixed-tilt .........................................47

Figure D-3. Levelized cost of energy, no PBI ...............................................................................48

Figure D-4. Levelized cost of energy with PBI of $0.30/kWh for 6 years (base Community Solar 

program) ...................................................................................................................................48

Figure D-5. Levelized cost of energy with PBI of $1.08/kWh for 6 years (Washington 

inverters) ..................................................................................................................................49
xi

List of Tables

Table ES-1. Snohomish County Cathcart Landfill PV System Summary .................................... vii

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

Table 2. Site Identification Information and Specifications ..........................................................15

Table 3. Performance Results for 1 kW-DC, 20-Degree Fixed-Tilt PV ........................................15

Table 4. Site Electrical Load ..........................................................................................................16

Table 5. Meters and Rate Schedules ..............................................................................................17

Table 6. Existing and Future Loads On and Near Cathcart Way Operations Center ....................18

Table 7. Installed System Cost Assumptions .................................................................................21

Table 8. Installed Costs Versus PBI Assumptions for Community Solar Cases ...........................24

Table 9. PV Cost of Energy by Development Scenario .................................................................26

Table 10. Existing Community Solar Systems in Washington ......................................................29

Table 11. PV System Summary .....................................................................................................30

Table 12. JEDI Analysis Assumptions ..........................................................................................31

Table B-1. Cost, System, and Other Assessment Assumptions .....................................................42

Table E-1. JEDI Model Fixed-Tilt Project Data Summary for 75-kW Community Solar ............50

Table E-2. JEDI Model Fixed-Tilt Project Data Summary for 3-MW Site Maximum Size 

Project ......................................................................................................................................51

Table E-3. JEDI Model Fixed-Tilt Local Economic Impacts Summary for 75 kW 

Community Solar .....................................................................................................................52

Table E-4. JEDI Model Fixed-Tilt Local Economic Impacts Summary for 3-MW Site Maximum 

Size Project ..............................................................................................................................53

Table E-5. JEDI Model Fixed-Tilt Detailed PV Project Data Costs Summary for 75-kW 

Community Solar .....................................................................................................................54

Table E-6. JEDI Model Fixed-Tilt Detailed PV Project Data Costs Summary for 3-MW Site 

Maximum Size Project .............................................................................................................54

Table E-7. JEDI Model Fixed-Tilt PV System Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs for 75-

kW Community Solar ..............................................................................................................55

Table E-8. JEDI Model Fixed-Tilt PV System Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs for 3-

MW Site Maximum Size Project .............................................................................................56
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 Snohomish County Cathcart Landfill site in

Snohomish County, Washington, for a feasibility study of renewable energy production. 

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

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

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

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

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

conditions at the site. 

The Snohomish County Cathcart Landfill is located within the boundary of the county’s 

Cathcart Way Operations Center in Snohomish County, Washington. The county seat is 

located in the City of Everett, which is approximately 25 miles north of Seattle. The City 

of Everett has an approximate population of 100,000 people,2 while the total county 

population is approximately 700,000.3

There are approximately 250 county employees at the site. The site includes office space, 

vehicle fleet parking and maintenance, industrial wastewater treatment (from landfill 

leachate collection system), and other county maintenance functions.4 The site is zoned 

light industrial. 

The 52-acre landfill is owned by the county and maintained by the county’s Public Works 

Solid Waste Division. It holds approximately 3.2 million tons of municipal waste in six 

cells. The landfill is capped and was active between 1980 and 1992. It is regulated by the 

Snohomish County Health District and is currently being operated under a 30-year postclosure permit. Any development on the cap will require approval by the Snohomish 

County Health District. 

The cap’s vegetative layer and soil are part of the functional design of the landfill. 

Therefore, the soil on the cap cannot be disturbed, although some material infill might be 

permitted to level parts of the site. Further, piles cannot be driven into the cap because 

this will risk puncturing the cap membrane. 

The landfill is lined and includes both methane gas and liquid leachate collection 

systems. The landfill’s six cells were filled chronologically from north to south. Cell 6 is 

at the southernmost end of the landfill, and has the youngest waste, so it therefore has the 

highest rates of settlement as waste degrades. Site personnel reported that the landfill 

experienced approximately 7 feet of settlement over the last 10 years. PV development 

can occur after settlement rates have slowed. Typically, a landfill site will not be 

developed for PV during the first 10 years after closure; however, each landfill’s rate of 

settlement will have to be studied to make this determination.

 

2 http://www.everettwa.org/default.aspx?ID=314. 3 http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/census2010/sf1/data/county/wa_2010_sf1_county_05000US53061.pdf. 4

http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/Public_Works/Services/Roads/Completed_Projects/Project

_RC1081.htm.
2 

The landfill has steep sides, especially at the southern end but has relatively flat regions 

along the center. Because the cap cannot be penetrated, any PV system will be of the 

ballasted type, meaning it will rest on top of the earth and be weighted down to resist 

wind. Because ballasted systems rely on gravity and friction to hold them in place, they 

are not appropriate for steep slopes with a risk of slippage. Grades of 5% and less are 

considered appropriate for ballasted PV systems.

The site’s serving utility is Snohomish County Public Utility District (SNOPUD). The 

site is served by 11 electricity usage meters. An existing 4.5-kW PV roof-mounted

system is installed on the site on one of the vehicle maintenance buildings. The site’s 

total annual consumption in 2011 was 2,555 MWh, and the calculated average load was 

292 kW. 

The blended average cost of electricity for Snohomish County (i.e., the rate the county 

pays the utility) is approximately $0.07–$0.08/kWh, depending on the meter and the 

rate tariff. 

Feasibility assessment team members from NREL, Snohomish County, and EPA 

conducted a site visit on May 23, 2012, to gather information integral to this feasibility 

study. The team considered information including solar resource, transmission 

availability, community acceptance, and ground conditions. 
3 

2 Development of a PV System on Landfills

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

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

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

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

residential redevelopment and could be adequately zoned for renewable energy 

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

infrastructure

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

cleanup costs or low real estate development demand

• Can provide job opportunities in urban and rural communities 

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

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

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

of land, in many cases, generating significant revenue on a site that would otherwise 

go unused. 

The Snohomish County Cathcart Landfill is owned by Snohomish County, which is 

interested in sustainable development on the site. For many landfill sites, the local 

community has significant interest in the redevelopment of the site and community 

engagement is critical to match future reuse options to the community’s vision for the 

site. Snohomish County plans to develop a sustainable community on county property 

adjacent to the landfill which 

would include housing, retail, 

and a public transportation hub. 

County officials said that a PV 

system on the landfill would 

contribute towards development 

of their sustainable vision for 

this property. 

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 vision for the 

site and should work to enhance 

the overall utility of 

the property. 

Fort Carson Project as a Model

Understanding opportunities studied and realized 

by other similar sites demonstrates the potential 

for PV system development. The U.S. Army 

installed a 2-MW PV system on a 15-acre former 

landfill at Fort Carson, which is located south of 

Colorado Springs. The landfill was in operation 

from 1965 to 1973 and is composed primarily of 

inert construction debris. The PV system is made 

up of flat-plate thin film panels that are at a fixed 

tilt. The project was financed through a power 

purchase agreement (PPA) and the project cost 

was $13 million in 2008 when the project was 

completed. The Fort Carson PV system generates 

3,200 MWh of electricity per year, which is 

enough to power the equivalent of 540 homes 

(http://www.epa.gov/oswercpa/docs/success_fort

carson_co.pdf). 
4 

There are many compelling reasons to consider 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 

• Generating energy without harmful emissions or waste products can be 

accomplished through renewable energy sources

• 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. 
5 

3 PV Systems

3.1 PV Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 1. Generation of electricity from a PV cell

Source: EPA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

commonly sold back to the electricity grid. 

(-)

(+)

-

- -

-

Electron

Current flow

-

Solar cell

- - -

Load
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 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 material only a 

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

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

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

rigid constructions that can be used in fixed-tilt systems 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 weakness and may 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 

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. However, larger commercial systems are 

typically sited where shading will not occur, and this is the expectation for the 

Snohomish County Cathcart Landfill site.
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 includes: 

• 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 landfill applications where the cap cannot be 

disturbed, ballasted systems are used. 

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 landfill sites because settlement of the site will cause 

problems for mechanical drive components in tracking systems. 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 face the sun all day, potentially increasing output up to 35% or more. Depending 

on underlying soil conditions, single- and dual-axis trackers may not be suitable due to 
10 

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

systems. Tracking systems are unlikely to be installed on landfills because of this 

settling issue. 

Table 1. Energy Density by Panel and System

System Type Fixed-Tilt Energy Density 

(DC-Watts/ft2

) 

Single-Axis Tracking 

Energy Density

(DC-Watts/ft

2

)

Crystalline Silicon 4.0 3.3

Thin Film 3.3 2.7

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 snow, wind, and seismic zones. Selection of mounting 

types should also consider frost protection needs, especially in cold regions such as 

New England. Based on information provided during the site visit to the Snohomish 

County Cathcart Landfill, penetration of the cap is not permitted. Therefore, a ballasted 

mounting system is required to be compatible with the landfill closure requirements. 

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 landfill 

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 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. 
11 

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 display, wall-mounted systems, or even smart phone 

applications. 

3.2.4 Operation and Maintenance

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

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

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

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

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

expected that the system will need replacement inverters in year 15 at a cost of $0.25/W. 

3.3 Siting Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

solar panels. 

In addition to solar access, site topography is also important. For ballasted systems 

appropriate for landfill sites, slopes less than and equal to a 5% grade are considered 

appropriate. Ballasted systems on steeper grades could slip with high winds or ground 

moisture from rain or melting snow.

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, incentives available, and utility policy. 
12 

4 Proposed Installation Location Information

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

May 23, 2012. 

4.1 Snohomish County Cathcart Landfill Site PV System

As discussed in Section 1, the Snohomish County Cathcart Landfill site is owned and 

operated by Snohomish County. 

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 Snohomish County landfill is mostly 

open except for gas collection wells and piping. 

Figure 6 shows an aerial view of the Snohomish County Cathcart Landfill site taken from 

Google Earth; the feasible area for PV is shaded in green and one possible electrical tie-in 

point for the PV system is indicated. As shown, there are two large expanses of relatively 

flat, un-shaded land, which makes it a suitable candidate for a PV system. The total area 

of the site that appears feasible for PV is approximately 15.2 acres, limited by the 

availability of flat areas, not shading concerns. 

Figure 6. Aerial view of the feasible area (green) for PV at the Snohomish County Cathcart 

Landfill site (south is to the left in this image) 

Illustration done in Google Earth

In Snohomish County, Washington, the average global horizontal annual solar resource—

the total solar radiation for a given location, including direct, diffuse, and groundreflected radiation—is 3.73 kWh/m2

/day, while U.S. maximum values of 

6.7 kWh/m2/day exist in the desert southwest. In general, the coastal region of the 

Northwest is a lower tier region of the country in terms of annual power production 

potential from PV systems. However, PV is technically suitable anywhere in the United 

States, and economic viability of PV depends as much on local incentives and local 

utility prices as it does on local solar resources. 

Figure 7 shows various views of the Snohomish County Cathcart Landfill site. 
13 

Figure 7. Views of the feasible area for PV at the Snohomish County Landfill. Photos by 

Dan Olis, NREL

4.2 Utility Considerations

The precise electrical tie-in point will depend on who is the off-taker (i.e., the consumer 

of the power produced)—Snohomish County or SNOPUD. For offsetting county load at

Cathcart, the tie-in will likely be close to the southeast corner of the landfill. A PV 

system larger than 100 kW requires a SNOPUD System Impact Study and possibly a 

Facility Study. For larger systems that need to tie in on the utility’s distribution system, 

the interconnection might be on Cathcart Way. SNOPUD indicated that systems greater 

than 3 MW would require a power system study to determine whether the system would 

need to tie in to a dedicated feeder and to which substation this feeder would connect. 

After the site visit, SNOPUD scheduled a conference call with Snohomish County 

personnel, an NREL representative, and the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) to 

discuss interconnection because SNOPUD resides within BPA’s balancing area. During 

this call, it was learned that SNOPUD and BPA have separate interconnection processes 

and procedures. Therefore, to interconnect a PV system on the local distribution, 

Snohomish County or the developer would have to submit dual applications and 

undertake dual review processes, one for SNOPUD and one for BPA. This is unusual. 

During this call, the 3-MW maximum size limit for local interconnection was reiterated 

by BPA. One possible feeder is approximately 2.5 miles west of the site. Others might be 
14 

closer. It would cost roughly $1 million per mile to run the electrical cables from Cathcart 

to the appropriate substation identified in the power flow study. 

In addition to these technical issues, the energy generated and injected into the 

distribution system would need a buyer. An analysis of the wholesale market is beyond 

the scope of this report; however, projects of this type are usually tens to hundreds of 

megawatts in size. SNOPUD and/or BPA would likely add “wheeling” and other charges 

to the project to transmit the electricity to market. 

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. As described above, an estimated 15.2 acres of the landfill are 

appropriate for PV development. More precise analysis of site slope characteristics and 

shading projections with tree growth will be completed by developers in a formal request 

for proposals (RFP) process. 

4.4 PV Site Solar Resource

The Snohomish County Cathcart Landfill site has been evaluated to determine the 

adequacy of the solar resource available using both on-site data and industry tools. 

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

points and found a solar access greater than 90% within the boundaries identified. All 

data gathered using this tool is available in Appendix C.

The predicted array performance was found using PVWatts Version 25 for Snohomish 

County, Washington. Table 2 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. 

 

5 http://www.nrel.gov/rredc/pvwatts/.
15 

Table 2. Site Identification Information and Specifications

Station Identification

Cell ID 019328

State Washington

Latitude 47.813° N

Longitude 122.054° W

PV System Specifications

DC Rating 1.00 kW

DC to AC Derate Factor 0.8 

AC Rating 0.770 kW

Array Type Fixed Tilt

Array Tilt 20°

Array Azimuth 180°

Energy Specifications

Cost of Electricity $0.08/kWh

Table 3 shows the performance results for a 20-degree fixed-tilt PV system in Snohomish 

County, Washington, as calculated by PVWatts. 

Table 3. Performance Results for 1 kW-DC, 20-Degree Fixed-Tilt PV

Month Solar Radiation

(kWh/m2

/day)

AC Energy

(kWh)

Energy Value

($)

1 1.50 32 2.56

2 2.44 51 4.08

3 3.37 79 6.32

4 4.49 103 8.24

5 5.26 123 9.84

6 5.89 130 10.40

7 6.22 141 11.28

8 5.77 130 10.40

9 4.58 101 8.08

10 2.83 64 5.12

11 1.46 31 2.48

12 1.22 24 1.92

Year 3.76 1,010 80.72

4.5 Snohomish County Cathcart Landfill Energy Usage

The Snohomish County Cathcart Landfill site is owned and operated by Snohomish 

County. The landfill is located with the county’s Cathcart Way Operations Center, which 

is home to about 250 county employees. The site includes office space, vehicle fleet 

maintenance, industrial waste water treatment (from landfill leachate collection system), 
16 

and other county maintenance functions. It is important to understand the energy use of 

the site to aid a full analysis of whether or not energy produced would be sold or if it 

could offset on-site energy use.

4.5.1 Current Energy Use

The site has 11 SNOPUD meters showing 2011 total energy consumption of 

2,555,333 kWh and indicating a demand of approximately 292 kW. The site meters 

operate under SNOPUD rate tariffs 20 and 25, General Service Medium Load and 

General Service Small Load, respectively.

6

The loads at each meter and the production from the existing PV system are shown in 

Table 4. The site reports the data may be incomplete however; the annual average load is 

estimated to be 292 kW. 

Table 4. Site Electrical Load

2011

Total 

Consumption 

(kWh)

PV 

Meter 

546966 

(kWh)

Total 

(kWh)

Average

Load 

(kW)

Jan 210,280 210,280 283

Feb 255,455 255,455 380

Mar 230,360 230,360 310

Apr 222,753 222,753 309

May 212,220 212,220 285

Jun 200,547 -527 200,020 278

Jul 151,780 -544 151,236 203

Aug 189,929 -456 189,473 255

Sep 171,940 -583 171,357 238

Oct 199,613 -291 199,322 268

Nov 226,720 -209 226,511 315

Dec 286,354 -8 286,346 385

Total 2,557,951 -2,618 2,555,333 292

The blended average cost of electricity for the county is approximately $0.07–

$0.08/kWh, depending on the meter and the rate tariff. Rate tariff, peak loads, and 

consumption by meter are shown in Table 5. 

 

6 http://www.snopud.com/AboutUs/Rates.ashx?p=1166.
17 

Table 5. Meters and Rate Schedules

Meter ID

Rate

Schedule

Peak (kW)

2011

Total Annual Energy 

Consumption

(kWh)

Mean Monthly Energy 

Consumption

(kWh)

129713 20 161.1 769,200 64,100 

124513 20 112.2 528,000 44,000

125778 20 332.7 749,400 62,450

140063 20 140.5 170,280 14,190

128320 20 77.9 131,120 10,927

124731 25 - 47,480 3,957

124732 25 - 51,680 4,307

128598 20 - 88,080 7,340

530554 25 - 20,630 1,719

129795 25 82.6 2,080 173

412840 25 - - -

PV meter 

546966 25 - (2,618) (218)

Annual Site Total (kWh) 2,555,333

In addition, other county and school district loads in the region of Catchcart Way 

Operations Center were provided, plus estimated loads that will result from planned 

future build-out on and near the site. These are shown in Table 6. The combined total of 

all regional loads existing and planned is estimated to be 4,698 kW, or 4.7 MW. 
18 

Table 6. Existing and Future Loads On and Near Cathcart Way Operations Center

Annual Usage 

(kWh)

Average Load 

(kW)

Cathcart South future estimated

Retail 6,110,000 697

Park & Ride Vehicle Charging Station 438,000 50

Cathcart West future estimated

High-Density Housing, 700 units 6,118,000 698

Single-Family Dwelling, 156 units 5,911,723 675

Urban Village 6,223,400 710

Business Park / Light Industrial 10,725,000 1,224

Snohomish School District (existing)

Glacier Peak High School 2,306,440 263

Little Cedars Elementary School 705,794 81

Other

Willis Tucker Park (existing) 73,360 8 

Cathcart Way Operations Center 2,555,333 292

TOTAL 41,167,050 4,698

4.5.2 Net Metering

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

request net metering service to any electric consumer that the electric 

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

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

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

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

offset electric energy provided by the electric utility to the electric 

consumer during the applicable billing period. 
19 

Washington's net-metering law,7

 which took effect in 1998, requires utilities to offer net 

metering to all customers with solar thermal electric, PV, wind, hydroelectric, fuel cells, 

and combined heat and power (CHP)/cogeneration systems up to 100 kW. 

If the renewable energy system generates more energy than is consumed, the net excess 

generation (NEG) is carried forward as a credit at the customer’s retail rate (i.e., $0.07–

$0.08/kWh for Snohomish County) on the customer’s next month bill. In Washington, 

NEG balances at the end of each 12-month period are surrendered to the utility, without 

compensation, on April 30 of each year. 

Renewable energy certificates (RECs),

8 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 

(renewable electricity). The RECs that are associated with the electricity produced and 

used on site remain with the customer-generator. RECs sometimes have significant value 

in states or other regional markets with renewable portfolio standard mandates. There is 

no compliance REC market in Washington, so the RECs generated by a project in 

Snohomish County have little monetary value besides what they may garner in voluntary 

markets, which are too low to influence project economics. If the county were to accept 

SNOPUD’s Solar Express incentive, the RECs from the project are transferred to 

the utility. 

4.5.3 Virtual Net Metering

Washington’s net-metering law also allows customers with multiple meters to virtually 

aggregate loads on each meter into a total customer load to allow a single, larger netmetered renewable energy system offset energy consumed on multiple utility meters.

However, meter aggregation is limited to 100 kW total per customer. This means that 

Snohomish County could install up to 100 kW of PV and receive net-metering benefits 

that could be applied to some or all of the meters at the Cathcart Way Operations Center 

or elsewhere in the county. 

 

7 For the full description see,

http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=WA01R&re=1&ee=1. 8 For a description of RECs, see http://apps3.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/

certificates.
20 

5 Economics and Performance

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

combination of the assumptions and background information discussed previously, a 

number of industry-specific inputs determined by other studies, and information provided 

by local developers and other individuals familiar with Washington’s incentives. For the 

analysis, this study uses the NREL System Advisor Model (SAM).9 

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

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

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

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

and geothermal power systems and makes economic calculations for both projects that 

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

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

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

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

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

commercial, and utility projects. It calculates the cost of generating electricity based on 

information entered about a project's location, installation and operating costs, type of 

financing, applicable tax credits and incentives, and system specifications.

5.1 Available Incentives

The financial viability of a project depends greatly on the incentives offered by utilities 

and governments. Under SNOPUD’s Solar Express program, Snohomish County is 

eligible to receive $500/kW for PV systems up to a $10,000 cap. The maximum system 

size allowed under this program is 100 kW-DC, the same as the net-metering limit.

In addition to SNOPUD’s Solar Express program, Washington State offers productionbased incentives (PBI) under the Renewable Energy System Cost Recovery program. The 

PBIs vary depending on the project type (community project and non-community 

projects) and whether in-state manufactured components are used. The incentives range 

from $0.15–$1.08/kWh and are paid annually up to a maximum of $5,000/yr through 

June of 2020. 

The state program is fairly complicated, but two possible components of the program are 

applicable to a project sited at Cathcart Operations Center. If the county purchases the 

system, the system is categorized as a “non-community project,” and the production 

incentives are $0.15/kWh and increase to $0.54/kWh if in-state-manufactured PV panels 

and inverters are used. If Snohomish County instead hosts a project under the program’s 

Business Owned Community Solar definition, the PBI is $0.30/kWh and increases to 

$1.08/kWh if in-state-manufactured panels and inverters are used.

 

9 For additional information on the NREL System Advisor Model, see https://sam.nrel.gov/cost. 
21 

A system that qualifies for the state’s non-community PBI is also eligible to receive 

SNOPUD’s Solar Express rebate. But a system that qualifies the state’s community solar 

PBI cannot also claim the Solar Express rebate.10

The federal government offers tax incentives to encourage solar PV development. Under 

investment tax credit (ITC) policy, a taxpayer can deduct 30% of qualified system costs 

from income earnings. Under the modified, accelerated cost-recovery system (MACRS), 

a business can claim accelerated depreciation on the renewable energy investment. 

Because the county does not pay taxes, they would not benefit from these federal 

incentives if they procure the system themselves. However, under some third-party 

ownership structures, it is possible the county could reap some of these benefits if they 

were to enter into a long-term (20 years or more) PPA. 

5.2 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, type of PV module, and local building code requirements. 

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 

$3.20/W in the fourth quarter of 2011. With an increasing demand and supply, potential 

of further cost reduction is expected as market conditions evolve. 

For this analysis, the installed cost of fixed-tilt ground-mounted systems was assumed to 

be $3.20/W. 

The estimated increase in cost from this baseline for a landfill system is 25%. This 

increased cost is due to limitations placed on design and construction methods due to the 

ground conditions at the site. Such limitations include restrictions on storm water runoff, 

weight loading of construction equipment, inability to trench for utility lines, additional 

engineering costs, permitting issues, and non-standard ballasted racking systems. The 

installed system cost assumptions are summarized in Table 7. 

Table 7. Installed System Cost Assumptions

System Type Fixed-Tilt

($/Watt) 

Baseline system 3.20

Landfill premium 0.80

Total installed cost 4.00

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. A $4/W price is 

equivalent to $4,000/kW. This includes estimated taxes and a national-average labor rate 

but does not include land cost. The economics of grid-tied PV depend on incentives, the 

 

10 Details of the state’s PBI are available at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=458-20-273. 

Details of SNOPUD’s Solar Express program are available at: 

http://www.snopud.com/home/green/solarexpress/photovoltaic.ashx?p=1490. 
22 

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

cost of conventional electricity was assumed to be $0.08/kW, as reported by Snohomish 

County based on electric bills for the site. 

In the economic analysis, $4/W is the assumed system total installed cost except for 

Community Solar scenarios using Washington-sourced components. For analysis of 

Washington’s Community Solar program, a $2.50/W cost premium is added to system 

costs when considering the higher incentives available when Washington-made modules 

and inverters are used. In this case, the analysis assumes $6.50/W. This cost premium is

based on conversations with individuals in Washington familiar with costs of these 

components. 

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

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

qualify for federal tax credits and accelerated depreciation on the PV system. The total 

potential tax benefits to the tax-paying entity can be as high as 45% of the initial system 

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

the PV system would be required to capture tax incentives. The PPA price analysis 

assumes federal tax incentives are captured. In addition, discussion of the impact of these 

tax incentives on the Community Solar program is presented; however, it is not clear at 

this time if or how this can be accomplished. For a Snohomish County purchased system, 

federal taxes are not included because the county is not a tax-paying entity.

For the purposes of the analyses in this report, the project is expected to have a 25-year 

life, although the systems can be reasonably expected to continue operation past this 

point. Inflation is assumed to be 1.5%, and the county’s nominal discount rate is assumed 

to be 5%. The panels are assumed to have a 0.5% per year performance degradation rate, 

a typical value. The operations and maintenance (O&M) expenses are estimated to be 

$20/kW/yr for the life of the system. In addition, it is expected that there will be a 

$250/kW ($0.25/W) charge to O&M in year 15 to replace the inverters associated with 

the system. A system DC-to-AC conversion of 80% was assumed. This includes energy 

losses in the inverter, wire losses, PV module losses, soiling, and system availability. The 

PVWatts system model within SAM was used to calculate expected energy performance

and system economics for county-purchased and third-party-financed procurements. In 

addition, the incentives available under Washington’s Community Solar program 

were considered. 

5.3 SAM Forecasted Economic Performance

Using the inputs and assumptions described above, the SAM tool predicts the levelized 

cost of energy (LCOE). The LCOE is calculated from the initial investment cost, O&M 

costs, projected energy produced, expected lifetime of the equipment, and an appropriate 

discount rate. The LCOE for energy produced by a renewable energy system is a useful 

figure of merit because it allows easy comparison among technology options and system 

sizes. It also has the same units ($/kWh) as utility purchased electricity, so it is a metric 

familiar to most consumers. 
23 

The LCOE can be thought of as the average cost of energy produced by the PV system. 

However, the value of this energy to the system owner, in economic terms, is equal to the 

price of the utility-purchased electricity the PV system displaces. If the LCOE produced 

by the PV system is less than the cost of utility-purchased energy, the system is 

considered cost effective.

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

The project financial results depend on the business arrangement under which the project 

is developed. The system could be procured directly by Snohomish County or private 

capital could be sought to improve economics of the project. 

5.3.1 Case 1 

Case 1 assumes Snohomish County self-finances the project using county appropriated 

funds. In this case, the county is eligible for a SNOPUD rebate under their Solar Express 

Rebate Program. The rebate is $500/kW and has a maximum incentive cap of $10,000. 

The maximum system size eligible is 100 kW-DC—the same size as the net-metering 

limit. 

In addition to SNOPUD’s rebate, the system would also be eligible for the state PBI 

under the Renewable Energy System Cost Recovery Program. In this case, the system 

can earn incentives as a non-community project with a PBI of $0.15/kWh, which

increases to $0.54/kWh if in-state-manufactured PV panels and inverters are used. 

However, because the maximum PBI payout is $5,000/yr, a 100-kW system will max out 

the benefit regardless of whether in-state components or cheaper components are used. 

This case is not eligible for higher PBIs in the program available under the community 

solar program. 

For this case, it is assumed that the maximum size of 100 kW-DC is installed and that the 

installed costs are consistent with national trends, or $4/W. SNOPUD’s rebate program 

requires use of SNOPUD registered installers. Depending on which and how many 

installers are registered with SNOPUD, this cost assumption could be optimistic. The 

$2.50/W cost premium for Washington-sourced components is not included because this 

program does not have this requirement and using higher cost components would further 

harm the economics. 

The LCOE from a system in this case is estimated to be $0.275/kWh, almost 3.5 times 

the current cost of electricity. The $10,000 SNOPUD rebate lowered the LCOE about 

$0.01/kWh while the state PBI dropped it about $0.06/kWh. 

5.3.2 Case 2 Through Case 4 

Case 2 through Case 4 consider a system developed under Washington’s Community 

Solar program, which has higher PBIs and a means to raise the cap on total payouts well 

above the $5,000/yr limit imposed on non-community projects. Community Solar 

projects are limited to a 75 kW-DC maximum size.

For the scenarios considered here, individual community subscribers to a community 

solar project receive the PBI, while the site host, Snohomish County in this case, would 
24 

consume the electricity generated. Program rules set an annual cap on PBI payment per 

subscriber (investor) to $5,000/yr. By bringing in more subscribers, larger total incentive 

payments can flow into a project, improving economics. The subscribers need to be 

SNOPUD customers.

The community solar analyses assume the $5,000/yr incentive cap is maximized for each 

investor and that each investor requires a 7% return on investment for their money. Total 

subscriber capital that is brought to a project is calculated considering the maximum 

incentive, PBI, and energy generated per year. It is also assumed that Snohomish County 

finances the remaining balance of total capital costs using county-appropriated funds. 

Washington’s PBI expires June 30, 2020. This analysis assumes that the system is 

installed by June 30, 2014, so that the project could capture 6 years of the PBI. 

The community solar program’s base PBI is $0.30/kWh but increases to $1.08/kWh for 

systems with inverters and modules manufactured in Washington. The cost-benefit of 

higher cost Washington components versus higher-earned PBI is considered here. Table 8

shows the PBI versus system unit cost assumptions. As mentioned above, after 

consultation with a couple individuals familiar with total installed costs for systems that 

include Washington-manufactured components, a $2.50/W cost premium is assumed for 

a total cost of $6.50/W for developments on landfills that use local components. 

Table 8. Installed Costs Versus PBI Assumptions for Community Solar Cases

Components Used Installed cost PBI 

Sourced from international 

supply chains

$4.00/W $0.30/kWh

Washington made $6.50/W $1.08/kWh

5.3.2.1 Case 2 

Case 2 is a 75 kW-DC Community Solar system with panels and inverters purchased 

through global supply chains. Therefore, a $4/W total system cost consistent with the 

national average for systems installed on landfills is assumed. The PBI in this case is 

$0.30/kWh, the base rate PBI offered through the program. The assumption in this case is 

that the federal tax incentives are not captured by the project. 

Under this scenario, the LCOE to the county is approximately $0.235/kWh, or three times 

the county’s current cost of electricity. Subscriber payments would cover 36% of the 

costs and the county would pay 64%, or $193,000. 

5.3.2.2 Case 3 

Case 3 is a 75 kW-DC Community Solar project that maximizes the PBI incentive by 

sourcing Washington-made modules and inverters. In this case, the PBI is $1.08/kWh and 

installed costs are assumed to be $6.50/W, as described above. This case also does not 

include any federal tax incentives. 
25 

The estimated LCOE is $0.138/kWh, or approximately 40% more than what the county 

currently pays. This case demonstrates that the community solar rebate for in-state 

components more than makes up for their additional costs. The cost share is 79% for

subscribers and 21% (about $102,000) for the county due to higher PBI payments. 

5.3.2.3 Case 4 

Case 4 is the same as Case 3, except that it assumes that the business entity that is created 

to develop the project is able to take advantage of the Community Solar PBI and also 

capture the federal investment tax credit and accelerated depreciation. Note that this case 

could be a hypothetical scenario because it might be difficult or prohibited by law to 

develop a project under this scenario. In this case, it is assumed that an investor with a 

tax liability pays for the full cost of the system and then collects subscriber payments 

from individuals in the community. The tax investor gets the tax incentives and upfront 

subscriber payments, community subscribers get the PBI, and the county as site host gets 

the electricity. 

Under this case, the subscriber fees and tax incentives appear to cover the full system costs so 

the county would not need to front any capital and would therefore receive energy output at 

no cost. Note however that, as previously stated, even if it is legally possible, constructing the 

business deal might be so complex that it cannot be practically executed. 

5.3.2.4 Case 5 

Case 5 analysis is for a third-party financed and maintained system with energy output 

sold to the county. This is called a PPA. PPA procurement models are described in a later 

section. Under this scenario, the system would be sized to best match the site’s electricity 

demands, in the range of 100–300 kW. More discussion of system size and site loads 

occurs in a later section. 

This case also assumes $4/W total installed costs and considers how federal tax 

incentives influence economics. Under this scenario, neither the Solar Express rebate nor 

the Community Solar rebates can be captured. Due to their complicated structure and 

need to attract large institutional investors, systems developed for PPAs are typically 

greater than a few megawatts in size. However, it is possible that smaller systems could 

be included in this scenario if bundled together with other smaller projects under a larger 

umbrella project. 

The cost of energy from a system in this case is estimated to be $0.194/kWh under a 

PPA, more than two times the current cost of electricity. In addition to the high cost of 

energy under this scenario, Snohomish County could be challenged to find participants 

developing PPAs for systems this small.

5.3.3 Summary of the Economic Forecast Results

A summary of the results of the case scenarios and economic analyses are shown in 

Table 9. 
26 

Table 9. PV Cost of Energy by Development Scenario

Development Case LCOE 

($/kWh)

Installed 

Costs*

Incentives

Case 1 County procurement, 

non-community solar, 

100 kW

$0.275 $4.00/W $0.50/W, $10,000 max 

SNOPUD Solar Express 

Rebate & WA non-community 

solar PBI $0.15/kWh for 6 

years

Case 2 Community Solar, 

base PBI, 75 kW

$0.235 $4.00/W WA Community Solar PBI 

$0.30/kWh for 6 years

Case 3 Community Solar,

max PBI, 75 kW

$0.138 $6.50/W WA Community Solar PBI 

$1.08/kWh for 6 years

Case 4 Community Solar, 

max PBI and federal 

tax incentives, 75 kW

no cost 

energy

$6.50/W $1.08/kWh PBI and federal 

tax incentives

Case 5 PPA, 3 MW or greater $0.194 $4.00/W Federal tax incentives

*$4/W is representative of national average costs for landfill development. $6.50/W includes a $2.50/W 

premium for system using in-state-made components to capture maximum PBI.

In Case 3, “Community Solar, maximum PBI, 75 kW,” the capital raised from the 

investors covers 79% of total system costs, while the county would pay the remaining 

21%. This would require 16 investors, each bringing about $24,100 to the project. The 

county would provide about $102,000 in funds. Under this scenario, the resulting energy 

would cost Snohomish County approximately $0.14/kWh from the system over the 25-

year analysis period. 

The results indicate that the economics are very challenging for Cases 1 through 3 and 

Case 5. From these four cases, Case 3 is the least cost; the county could pursue a 

sustainable project at cost of about $100,000. 

As described above, Case 4 might be hypothetical, but the results suggest the county 

might be able to participate in a sustainable project without having to provide any upfront 

capital. If a development firm can legally form and attract interested parties in a timely 

manner to capture both the PBI and federal tax incentives, the analysis suggests the 

county could offtake free electricity in exchange for hosting the Community 

Solar project. 

Note, however, that discussions with SNOPUD and others who have done Community 

Solar projects in Washington have indicated that these projects are complex and could 

take up to 2 years to execute. So in addition to the cash outlay under Case 4, the county 

would have to expend personnel resources to see a project to fruition. 

Case 5, the PPA scenario, is presented to demonstrate how federal tax incentives are 

often captured under third-party financing arrangements to allow a non-tax paying entity 

to still benefit from them. In this case, the county would have to sign a 20-year power 

contract and pay approximately $0.19/kWh for electricity. Typically, PPAs project sizes 
27 

are often greater than 10 MW. It is unlikely that a PPA would work considering the cost 

of energy and limited demand at the site.

5.3.4 Off-Take, System Size, and Economic Summary 

The county expressed an interest in maximizing the system’s size. A good rule of thumb 

for PV area footprint requirements is 5–6 acres of land for each 1 MW-DC of system 

size. The estimate includes spacing between rows, access roads, and area for inverters. 

With the previous estimate that 15.2 acres of the landfill are appropriate for development, 

the site will accommodate approximately 2.5–3.0 MW of PV. This is only an estimate. 

The maximum potential will be determined by developers based on careful analysis of 

shading from trees, both current and with future growth projections, and site elevation 

data to find relatively flat land area. 

SNOPUD said that a system 3 MW or greater might have to interconnect approximately 

2.5 miles to the west of the Cathcart site. This could add up to $1/W on the cost of the 

installation. Further, the off-taker of the energy produced in this scenario is unidentified. 

A market analysis would be required (but is not recommended due to poor economic 

outlook) to find off-takers and determine potential value of energy generated, as well as 

distribution charges to wheel that power to the potential customers. Systems that sell into 

wholesale markets are usually one or two orders of magnitude in size greater than the 

potential described here. With an unknown off-taker, added development costs, and 

added overhead of distribution tariffs to market the power across BPA’s system, it is 

recommended that this option not be further considered. 

In addition to the constraints based on total land appropriate for development and 

regional interconnection, the maximum size of the system also depends on which entity 

consumes the power generated. For this site, the most likely off-taker could be either 

Snohomish County or SNOPUD. 

During the site visit, SNOPUD indicated that they would consider purchasing up to 

2 MW from the system under their Small Renewables Program but would only be 

interested in signing a 5-year contract for approximately $0.05–$0.06/kWh for the 

renewable energy generated. These terms are insufficient to support PV development for 

Snohomish PUD as off-taker. As can be seen in Case 1 in Table 9, a system of 100 kW 

has a cost of energy of $0.275/kWh over a 25-year analysis period. A system larger than 

this would not qualify for SNOPUD’s Solar Express Rebate so the cost of energy would 

increase slightly. If SNOPUD would pay greater than $0.28/kWh for electricity on a 25- 

year contract, then a project with SNOPUD as the power off-taker would be 

economically feasible. 

As described above, Snohomish County’s energy consumption on the Cathcart site is 

2,555,333 kWh/year. A 2.53-MW-DC system would provide all the energy the Cathcart 

site consumes in a year.11 However, the timing and magnitude of the power output from 

the system will exceed the site load many hours of the year so excess energy generated 

would spill over the utility. Net-metering policies allow this excess energy to be captured 

as a credit; however, the current net-metering limit is only 100 kW. Therefore, the excess 

 

11 1 kW of PV generates 1,010 kWh/yr in Snohomish County.
28 

generation would be forfeited to the utility according to Washington’s net-metering 

policy. 

Snohomish County could install a system greater than the net-metering limit but limit its

size so that little excess energy spills into the grid. The average site load in 2011 was 

292 kW-AC. A 365-kW-DC system will produce 292 kW-AC power output under 

standard conditions. This suggests that Snohomish County could install a 365-kW-DC 

system and make use of most or all of the power produced. Note that this is only an 

approximation and that developers would perform a careful analysis of the site’s hourly 

or sub-hourly power demand data before recommending a system size for this scenario. 

As shown in Case 1 in Table 9, the cost of energy from a 100-kW system, which includes 

a SNOPUD Solar Express incentive, is $0.275/kWh over a 25-year analysis period. A 

system greater than 100 kW does not qualify for this incentive so the cost of energy will 

increase slightly. Energy from a system of this size will cost Snohomish County 

approximately 3.5 times more than their current cost of electricity. 

Another option, and the most economically viable one, is development of a system within 

the constraints of Washington’s Community Solar program. The program rules indicate 

that a system “will qualify if it generates 75 kW of electricity or less. If the solar energy 

system or a community solar project produces more than 75 kW the entire project is 

ineligible for the incentive payment program.”12 The program rules indicate that 

additional systems up to 75 kW in size can be added at a site as long as the system has a 

separate inverter, meter, and owners. 

Total funding levels that a utility is required to make available for the PBI are 0.5% of the 

utility’s total annual taxable power sales. Additionally, 5% of this total is slated for 

Community Solar projects of the type considered here (“business owned”) according to 

program rules. A SNOPUD representative indicated that this calculates out to 

approximately a total program capacity of 108 kW. This representative indicated that 

there is currently only a single 4-kW Community Solar system in SNOPUD service 

territory and that this system will expand to 22 kW this year.

13 This leaves an available

balance of 86 kW in program capacity for SNOPUD administered business-owned 

Community Solar. This means that there is room in the program for only one more 

75-kW system. 

Table 10 shows systems currently installed in Washington under the Community Solar 

program. The system in SNOPUD’s program is the Frances Anderson Community Center 

in Edmonds. 

 

12 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=458-20-273. 13 Phone conversation with Leslie Moynihan, Renewables Program Manager, SNOPUD. 
29 

Table 10. Existing Community Solar Systems in Washington14

Name Location Size (kW)

Bainbridge Island City Hall Bainbridge 71

Twisp Public Development Twisp 35

Jefferson Park Seattle 23

Port Townsend Airport Port Townsend 4 

Clark County Fairgrounds Ridgefield 25

Frances Anderson Community Center Edmonds 4 

Kingston High School Kingston 47

Winthrop Community Solar Project Winthrop 23

Port of Coupeville Greenbank Farm Greenbank 51

Poulsbo Middle School Poulsbo 75

Total 358 kW

In summary, the most economic system size is constrained by these factors:

1. 292-kW Cathcart site average load 

2. 86-kW Community Solar total program available capacity with SNOPUD

3. 100-kW net-metering limit

4. 75-kW maximum incremental Community Solar project size. 

A system size of 75 kW appears to be the most likely project size for Cathcart; however, 

as stated earlier, Community Solar program rules might allow additional Community 

Solar project to be developed with certain requirements that might challenge expanded 

development. 

Table 11 provides a summary of system energy production and economic potential. 

 

14 Provided by Phil Lou by email correspondence. Lou is point of contact for state incentives through 

Washington State University Extension Energy Program.
30 

Table 11. PV System Summary

The Community Solar program is fairly complicated. Understanding the program and 

developing a project will require project champions in Snohomish County government 

and motivated community members. The following bullets summarize program rules and 

project considerations: 

• Community Solar subscribers have to be SNOPUD customers. This limits total 

possible investor pool. 

• SNOPUD’s obligation is to provide PBI for up to 108 kW and the program has 

approximately 86 kW of remaining capacity. 

• Community Solar PBI is available through June 30, 2020. The longer it takes to 

execute a project, the more challenging the economic environment.

• The property that hosts to a Community Solar project has to be served by the 

utility paying the PBI.

• The rules are complicated and seem to be designed to contain size and encourage 

local market participation. Large national-development firms are less likely to 

respond to solicitations for proposals than local developers. 

• At this time, it is not clear if a small Community Solar project can attract a tax 

equity investor for exploitation of the federal tax incentive or whether a project 

can be legally structured to allow this and still capture the Community Solar PBI.

Contact information for local programs and incentives is provided in Appendix F. 
31 

5.4 Job Analysis and Impact

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

analysis, the NREL Jobs and Economic Development Impact (JEDI) models were used.

15

The JEDI models are tools that estimate the economic impacts associated with the 

construction and operation of distributed generation power plants. JEDI is a flexible 

input-output tool that estimates, but does not precisely predict, the number of jobs and 

economic impacts that can be reasonably supported by the proposed facility. 

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

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

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

the associated construction materials, metal fabrication industry, project management 

support, transportation, and other industries that are required to enable the procurement 

and installation of the complete system. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the Snohomish County Cathcart Landfill site, the values in Table 12 were assumed. 

Table 12. JEDI Analysis Assumptions

Input Community Solar Maximum Size

Capacity 75 kW 3,000 kW

Placed In Service Year 2013 2013

Installed System Cost $487,500 $12,000,000

Location Washington Washington

Results can be scaled for other project sizes. Using these inputs, the JEDI tool 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, 

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

person for the duration of a year. Construction-period jobs are considered short-term 

positions that exist only during the procurement and construction periods. 

 

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

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

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

http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/jedi/about_jedi.html.
32 

As indicated in the results of the JEDI model analysis provided in Appendix E, the 

proposed 75-kW system is estimated to support 3.2 direct and indirect jobs per year for 

the duration of the procurement and construction period, while a 3-MW system would 

support 78.1 jobs. Total wages paid to workers during the construction period are 

estimated to be $168,700 for 75 kW and $4,153,300 for 3 MW. The total economic 

output is estimated to be $432,500 for 75 kW and $10,647,300 for 3 MW. The annual 

O&M of a 3 MW PV system is estimated to support 1 FTE per year for the life of the 

system, while it is negligible for the 75-kW system. The jobs and associated spending are 

projected to account for approximately: 

• $1,500 in earnings and $2,700 in economic activity each year for the next 

25 years for a 75-kW system

• $61,700 in earnings and $108,700 in economic activity each year for the next 

25 years for a 3-MW system.

5.5 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. 

5.5.1 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 programs are on the decline. Regardless, as taxexempt entities, public entities are unable to benefit directly from the various tax-creditbased incentives available to private companies. This has given way to the now common 

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

5.5.2 Third-Party Developers with Power Purchase Agreements

Because many project site hosts do 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 
33 

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 vary from 20–25 years.

5.5.3 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 a special purpose entity (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 until after the tax benefits are exhausted, 

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 investors’ return is met. 

5.5.4 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. 

5.5.5 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 its treatment 

of tax benefits and the rules limiting federal tax benefit transfers from non-profit to forprofit 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 
34 

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

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

or 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 “sales/leaseback.” Under 

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

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

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

market value.

5.5.6 Sales/Leaseback

In the widely accepted sales/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. 

5.5.7 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 solar systems 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 virtual net metering. 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. 
35 

Community solar garden and customer subscription-based projects can be solely owned 

by the utility, solely owned 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). 
36 

6 Conclusions and Recommendations 

The site locations considered for a solar PV system in this report are feasible areas in 

which to implement solar PV systems. Available acreage and local utility infrastructure 

could potentially support up to 3 MW of PV on the Snohomish County Landfill. The 

original project proposal was for 5 MW, but a system of this size will not likely fit due to 

insufficient area of flat regions. However, site electrical loads and policy and program 

size limits suggest a 100-kW net-metered system or a 75-kW community solar system are

more reasonable and are the most economical but still have poor project economics. The 

systems in these cases are likely to have paybacks periods of 25 years or more. Although 

a 3-MW system would fit on the site, current net-metering limits and lack of other 

identified off-taker make a system of this size unviable. 

As summarized in Section 5, the economic analysis completed using SAM predicts a 

likely LCOE of $0.14–$0.28/kWh, depending on what local incentives are captured and 

to what degree. A 75-kW community solar project that maximizes the PBI but is unable 

to exploit federal tax incentives has an estimated LCOE of $0.14/kWh and a 25-year 

simple payback. If a project can incorporate federal tax incentives and attract a tax equity 

investor, Snohomish County could receive no-cost power in exchange for hosting the 

project. However, this scenario seems unlikely due to uncertainty over the legality of this 

type of project structure, the added complexity it presents, and that projects of this type 

were not described by local developers and utility representatives as having been done 

to date.

If the county is interested in pursuing a project, it should find a strong project champion 

within county government and expect a challenge navigating the project to completion. 

The next steps are to develop an internal consensus on whether the county is willing to 

take on a renewable energy project that is not supported by economics, decide on whether 

to purchase a 100-kW system or pursue a more complicated 75-kW community solar 

project, and then move forward with a request for proposals to see what the market 

will offer.

Snohomish County’s enthusiasm combined with the state’s high PBIs for locally 

manufactured modules and inverters are the two strong drivers that counterbalance the 

relatively low cost of electricity. This report finds that a PV system is a possible use for 

the site, but that project economics are unfavorable. 
37 

Appendix A. Provided Site Information

Figure A-1. Aerial view of site

Source: Snohomish County Public Works
38 

Figure A-2. Existing infrastructure site map

Source: Snohomish County Public Works
39 

Figure A-3. Sustainable Cathcart proposed project

Source: Snohomish County Public Works

Figure A-4. Gas collection system at Snohomish County Landfill

Source: Snohomish County Public Works
40 

Figure A-5. Tree height in relation to landfill elevation

Source: Snohomish County Public Works

Figure A-6. Garbage depth profiles

Source: Snohomish County Public Works
41 

Figure A-7. Snohomish County Landfill topography

Source: Snohomish County Public Works

Figure A-8. Height above ground surface map

Source: Snohomish County Public Works
42 

Appendix B. Assessment and Calculations 

Assumptions

Table B-1. Cost, System, and Other Assessment Assumptions

Cost Assumptions

Variable Quantity of 

Variable

Unit of Variable

Cost of Site Electricity 0.08 $/kWh

Annual O&M (fixed)

Inverter Replacement (Year 15)

20

250

$/kW/yr

$/kW

System Assumptions

System Type Annual energy 

kWh/kW

Installed Cost 

($/W)

Energy Density 

(W/sq. ft.)

Ground Fixed 1,010 $4.00 4.0

Assumptions & Conversions

1 acre = 43,560 ft2

1 MW = 1,000,000 W

Ground 

utilization

90% of available 

area
43 

Appendix C. Solar Access Measurements 

5/23/2012 11:12 – South end of landfill, edge of top

Panel Orientation: Tilt=48° -- Azimuth=180° -- Skyline Heading=178°

Solar Access: Annual: 97% -- Summer (May-Oct): 100% -- Winter (Nov-Apr): 93% 

Figure C-1. Solar access measurements for south end of Snohomish County Cathcart 

Landfill PV site, at top edge
44 

5/23/2012 11:12 – South edge of landfill, about 30 ft from edge

Panel Orientation: Tilt=48° -- Azimuth=180° -- Skyline Heading=183°

Solar Access: Annual: 99% -- Summer (May-Oct): 100% -- Winter (Nov-Apr): 96%

Figure C-2. Solar access measurements for south edge of Snohomish County Cathcart 

Landfill PV site, 30 feet north from edge
45 

5/23/2012 12:15 – Landfill center, adjacent to cars on landfill

Panel Orientation: Tilt=48° -- Azimuth=180° -- Skyline Heading=172°

Solar Access: Annual: 95% -- Summer (May-Oct): 97% -- Winter (Nov-Apr): 92% 

Figure C-3. Solar access measurements for center, adjacent to cars, on Snohomish 

County Cathcart Landfill PV site
46 

5/23/2012 12:34 -- 45deg52'3"N, 12deg7'6"W (East edge)

Panel Orientation: Tilt=48° -- Azimuth=180° -- Skyline Heading=179°

Solar Access: Annual: 98% -- Summer (May-Oct): 99% -- Winter (Nov-Apr): 96% 

Figure C-4. Solar access measurements for east edge of Snohomish County Cathcart 

Landfill PV site
47 

Appendix D. Results of the System Advisor Model

Figure D-1. Monthly energy produced from 3-MW system, fixed-tilt

Figure D-2. Monthly energy produced from 75-kW system, fixed-tilt
48 

Figure D-3. Levelized cost of energy, no PBI

Figure D-4. Levelized cost of energy with PBI of $0.30/kWh for 6 years (base Community 

Solar program)
49 

Figure D-5. Levelized cost of energy with PBI of $1.08/kWh for 6 years (Washington 

inverters)
50 

Appendix E. Results of the JEDI Model for 75-kW 

Community Solar and Site Maximum 3-MW 

System 

Table E-1. JEDI Model Fixed-Tilt Project Data Summary for 75-kW Community Solar

Project Location WASHINGTON

Year of Construction or Installation 2013

Average System Size - DC Nameplate Capacity (KW) 75.0

Number of Systems Installed 1

Project Size - DC Nameplate Capacity (KW) 75.0

System Application Utility

Solar Cell/Module Material Crystalline Silicon

System Tracking Fixed Mount

Total System Base Cost ($/KWDC) $6,500

Annual Direct Operations and Maintenance Cost ($/kW) $25.00

Money Value - Current or Constant (Dollar Year) 2012

Project Construction or Installation Cost $487,500

 Local Spending $225,169

Total Annual Operational Expenses $58,425

 Direct Operating and Maintenance Costs $1,875

 Local Spending $1,725

 Other Annual Costs $56,550

 Local Spending $0

 Debt Payments $0

 Property Taxes $0
51 

Table E-2. JEDI Model Fixed-Tilt Project Data Summary for 3-MW Site Maximum 

Size Project

Project Location WASHINGTON

Year of Construction or Installation 2013

Average System Size - DC Nameplate Capacity (KW) 3,000.0

Number of Systems Installed 1

Project Size - DC Nameplate Capacity (KW) 3,000.0

System Application Utility

Solar Cell/Module Material Crystalline Silicon

System Tracking Fixed Mount

Total System Base Cost ($/KWDC) $4,000

Annual Direct Operations and Maintenance Cost ($/kW) $25.00

Money Value - Current or Constant (Dollar Year) 2012

Project Construction or Installation Cost $12,000,000

 Local Spending $5,542,616

Total Annual Operational Expenses $1,467,000

 Direct Operating and Maintenance Costs $75,000

 Local Spending $69,000

 Other Annual Costs $1,392,000

 Local Spending $0

 Debt Payments $0

 Property Taxes $0
52 

Table E-3. JEDI Model Fixed-Tilt Local Economic Impacts Summary for 75 kW 

Community Solar

Jobs Earnings Output

During construction and installation period $000 (2012) $000 (2012)

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts

 Construction and Installation Labor 0.7 $44.4

 Construction and Installation Related Services 0.9 $37.6

 Subtotal 1.6 $82.0 $135.4

 Module and Supply Chain Impacts

 Manufacturing Impacts 0.0 $0.0 $0.0

 Trade (Wholesale and Retail) 0.1 $9.0 $26.5

 Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 0.0 $0.0 $0.0

 Professional Services 0.2 $10.4 $35.5

 Other Services 0.3 $27.5 $94.7

 Other Sectors 0.4 $5.1 $17.5

 Subtotal 1.1 $52.0 $174.3

 Induced Impacts 0.5 $34.8 $122.9

 Total Impacts 3.2 $168.7 $432.5

Annual Annual

Annual Earnings Output

During operating years Jobs $000 (2012) $000 (2012)

 Onsite Labor Impacts

 PV Project Labor Only 0.0 $1.0 $1.0

 Local Revenue and Supply Chain Impacts 0.0 $0.3 $1.0

 Induced Impacts 0.0 $0.2 $0.6

 Total Impacts 0.0 $1.5 $2.7

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.
53 

Table E-4. JEDI Model Fixed-Tilt Local Economic Impacts Summary for 3-MW Site 

Maximum Size Project

Jobs Earnings Output

During construction and installation period $000 (2012) $000 (2012)

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts

 Construction and Installation Labor 16.9 $1,093.4

 Construction and Installation Related Services 22.2 $924.3

 Subtotal 39.1 $2,017.7 $3,333.2

 Module and Supply Chain Impacts

 Manufacturing Impacts 0.0 $0.0 $0.0

 Trade (Wholesale and Retail) 3.6 $221.3 $652.9

 Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 0.0 $0.0 $0.0

 Professional Services 5.3 $255.0 $874.1

 Other Services 7.8 $676.5 $2,331.0

 Other Sectors 9.9 $126.3 $431.3

 Subtotal 26.7 $1,279.0 $4,289.3

 Induced Impacts 12.3 $856.6 $3,024.8

 Total Impacts 78.1 $4,153.3 $10,647.3

Annual Annual

Annual Earnings Output

During operating years Jobs $000 (2012) $000 (2012)

 Onsite Labor Impacts

 PV Project Labor Only 0.7 $41.8 $41.8

 Local Revenue and Supply Chain Impacts 0.2 $12.7 $41.4

 Induced Impacts 0.1 $7.2 $25.5

 Total Impacts 1.0 $61.7 $108.7

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.
54 

Table E-5. JEDI Model Fixed-Tilt Detailed PV Project Data Costs Summary for 75-kW 

Community Solar

Table E-6. JEDI Model Fixed-Tilt Detailed PV Project Data Costs Summary for 3-MW Site 

Maximum Size Project

WASHINGTON Purchased Manufactured

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

Materials & Equipment

 Mounting (rails, clamps, fittings, etc.) $437,613 100% N

 Modules $4,806,068 100% N

 Electrical (wire, connectors, breakers, etc.) $498,954 100% N

 Inverter $714,749 100% N

 Subtotal $6,457,384

Labor

 Installation $1,093,418 100%

 Subtotal $1,093,418

Subtotal $7,550,802

Other Costs

 Permitting $50,525 100%

 Other Costs $1,116,611 100%

 Business Overhead $3,282,061 100%

 Subtotal $4,449,198

Subtotal $12,000,000

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

Total $12,000,000

WASHINGTON Purchased Manufactured

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

Materials & Equipment

 Mounting (rails, clamps, fittings, etc.) $437,613 100% N

 Modules $4,806,068 100% N

 Electrical (wire, connectors, breakers, etc.) $498,954 100% N

 Inverter $714,749 100% N

 Subtotal $6,457,384

Labor

 Installation $1,093,418 100%

 Subtotal $1,093,418

Subtotal $7,550,802

Other Costs

 Permitting $50,525 100%

 Other Costs $1,116,611 100%

 Business Overhead $3,282,061 100%

 Subtotal $4,449,198

Subtotal $12,000,000

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

Total $12,000,000
55 

Table E-7. JEDI Model Fixed-Tilt PV System Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs for 

75-kW Community Solar

Cost Local Share

Manufactured 

Locally 

(Y or N)

Labor

 Technicians $1,125 100%

 Subtotal $1,125

Materials and Services

 Materials & Equipment $750 100% N

 Services $0 100%

 Subtotal $750

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

Average Annual Payment (Interest and Principal) $56,550 0%

Property Taxes $0 100%

Total $58,425

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) 0%

 Local Property Taxes $0 100%

 Local Sales Tax Rate 6.50% 100%

 Sales Tax Exemption (percent of local taxes) 100%

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%
56 

Table E-8. JEDI Model Fixed-Tilt PV System Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs for

3-MW Site Maximum Size Project

Cost Local Share

Manufactured 

Locally (Y or N)

Labor

 Technicians $45,000 100%

 Subtotal $45,000

Materials and Services

 Materials & Equipment $30,000 100% N

 Services $0 100%

 Subtotal $30,000

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

Average Annual Payment (Interest and Principal) $1,392,000 0%

Property Taxes $0 100%

Total $1,467,000

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) 0%

 Local Property Taxes $0 100%

 Local Sales Tax Rate 6.50% 100%

 Sales Tax Exemption (percent of local taxes) 100%

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%
57 

Appendix F. Contact Information for Local 

Incentives and Programs

Contact information for SNOPUD renewable program manager is: 

Leslie Moynihan

Renewables Program Manager 

Snohomish County PUD 

(425) 783-8289 

LGMoynihan@snopud.com

www.snopud.com

Contact information for Washington State PBI incentives (called the “Renewable Energy 

Cost Recovery Incentive Payment Program”) details are:

Phil Lou 

Washington State University 

Extension Energy Program 

PO Box 43165 

905 Plum St SE Bldg #4 

Olympia, WA 98504-3165 

(360) 956-2132 

loup@energy.wsu.edu

Beth Mills

Washington State Department of Revenue 

6500 Linderson Way SW 

Suite 102 

Tumwater, WA 98501 

(360) 705-6642 

bethm@dor.wa.gov

http://dor.wa.gov