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 Former 

Bethlehem Steel Plant Brownfield 

Site in Lackawanna, New York

A Study Prepared in Partnership with the 

Environmental Protection Agency for the 

RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative: 

Siting Renewable Energy on Potentially 

Contaminated Land and Mine Sites

James Salasovich, Jesse Geiger, Gail Mosey, 

and Victoria Healey 

Produced under direction of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) under 

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

Technical Report

NREL/TP-7A40-58194

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 Former 

Bethlehem Steel Plant Brownfield 

Site in Lackawanna, New York 

A Study Prepared in Partnership with the 

Environmental Protection Agency for the 

RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative: 

Siting Renewable Energy on Potentially 

Contaminated Land and Mine Sites

Jimmy Salasovich, Jesse Geiger, Gail Mosey, 

and Victoria Healey 

Prepared under Task No. WFD3.1001

Technical Report

NREL/ TP-7A40-58194

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”).

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 Former Bethlehem Steel Plant facility 

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

Special thanks go to Brigid Lowery, Fernando Rosado, Katie Brown, Shea Jones, Jessica Trice, 

and Lura Matthews from EPA; Katie Brown, AAAS Science & Technology Policy fellow hosted 

by EPA; and Ralph Miranda from the City of Lackawanna for hosting the site visit. 
iv

Executive Summary

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

America’s Land initiative, selected the Former Bethlehem Steel Plant site in Lackawanna, New 

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

Laboratory (NREL) provided technical assistance for this project. The purpose of this report is to 

assess the site for a possible photovoltaic (PV) system installation and estimate the cost, 

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

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

did not assess environmental conditions at the site. 

The Former Bethlehem Steel Plant site is located on the eastern shore of Lake Erie in the City of 

Lackawanna, New York, which is south of the City of Buffalo. The Bethlehem Steel Plant was in 

operation for over 80 years from 1902–1983. At the height of operations during the first half of 

the 20th century, the plant employed approximately 20,000 people. There was a large decline in 

U.S. steel production in the second half of the 20th century, which led to the plant being closed in 

the mid-1980s. The site is currently home to the Steel Winds project, a huge success story in 

repurposing brownfields. The City of Lackawanna and the owner of the property, ArcelorMittal 

Tecumseh Redevelopment, Inc., are interested in developing this underused land for wind and 

solar power as well as constructing light industrial buildings.

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

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

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

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

the Former Bethlehem Steel Plant is suitable for deployment of a large-scale PV system. 

The Former Bethlehem Steel Plant site is approximately 1,100 acres and there is the potential to 

build out a portion of the site with a ground-mounted PV system and to also build out a portion 

of the site with light industrial buildings that have roof-mounted PV. There are currently 

325 acres available for a ground-mounted PV system in the center of the site and 93 acres 

available for a ground-mounted PV system using micro-inverters around the Steel Winds largescale wind site (micro-inverters are selected for this area because there will be some shading 

from the wind turbines). There are 364 acres that will contain buildings that are potentially 

available for a roof-mounted PV system; however, 60% of the 364-acre site is estimated to be 

available for solar panels due to potential roof obstruction and roof orientations. While the entire 

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

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

the total feasible area is used. It should be noted that the purpose of this report is not to determine 

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

manner. 

Of the 10 scenarios considered, none had a positive net present value, but 7 had a payback in the 

analysis period. The economic feasibility of a potential PV system on the Former Bethlehem 

Steel Plant site depends on the purchase price of the PV panels. The economics were analyzed 

using the average New York State Electric retail rate provided during the site visit of $0.12/kWh 

and generated electricity sale rate of $0.05/kWh. This report also considered all available 
v 

financial incentives that would be available to the site. Table ES-1 shows the current incentives 

considered that were found on the DSIRE website.1

Table ES-1. Summary of Incentives Evaluated

Incentive Title Modeled Value Expected End Date

PV Incentive Program $1.50/W, $75,000 cap 12/31/2015

Federal Investment Tax Credit 30% of total investment 2016

Accelerated MACRS Schedule

Bonus 50% in the first 

year for federal 

depreciation None currently

Net Metering Net meter up to 2 MW None currently

Sales Tax Exemption 0% sales tax None currently

The net metering applied only to the 2-MW cases. Other incentives that the Lackawanna site was 

not eligible for were not considered at this time. 

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

use all available areas that were surveyed at the Former Bethlehem Steel Plant site. The table 

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

households that could be powered off of such a system and estimated job creation. The net 

metering single-axis system, which is the best economic case, is expected to have a payback of 

14.8 years and a net present value of $(46,780), producing approximately 2,801,366 kWh 

annually. This includes the current cost of energy, expected installation cost, site solar resource, 

and existing incentives for the proposed PV system. The savings and payback are not deemed 

reasonable and as such, a solar PV system does not represent a viable reuse for the site under 

current policy conditions. 

 

1 Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE). Accessed April 30, 2013: 

http://www.dsireusa.org/. 
vi 

Table ES-2. Former Bethlehem Steel Plant PV System Summary
vii 

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.1 Former Bethlehem Steel Plant Site PV System ............................................................................. 13

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

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

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

4.5 Former Bethlehem Steel Plant Energy Usage ................................................................................ 19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.2.2 Third-Party PPA Versus Developer Owned ..................................................................... 25

5.2.3 Possible Ways to Improve the Economics Not Modeled .................................................. 25

5.3 Job Analysis and Impact ................................................................................................................ 27

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.4.6 Sales/Leaseback ................................................................................................................ 30

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

6 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................... 32

Appendix A. Assessment and Calculations Assumptions ................................................................... 33

Appendix B. Results of the System Advisor Model .............................................................................. 36

Appendix C. Results of the Jobs and Economic Development Impact Model ................................... 75

Appendix D. Building Energy Modeling.................................................................................................. 79

Lackawanna Light Industrial Building Energy Model ......................................................................... 79
viii

List of Figures

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

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

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

Figure 4. Thin-film solar panels installed on a (left) solar energy cover and (middle/right) fixedtilt mounting system ...................................................................................................................8

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

Figure 6. Aerial view of the feasible areas for PV at the Former Bethlehem Steel Plant (groundmounted micro-inverter PV in green; ground-mounted PV in yellow; light industrial rooftop 

PV in red; highly contaminated area in purple) .......................................................................14

Figure 7. Views of the feasible area for ground-mounted PV at the Lackawanna site..................15

Figure 8. Views of the feasible area for ground-mounted PV with micro-inverters at the Steel 

Winds portion of the Lackawanna site .....................................................................................16

Figure 9. Location of on-site substation in relation to the Lackawanna site .................................17

Figure B-1. Levelized cost of energy—Primary (yellow shaded) area—Single axis— 

36,206 kW ................................................................................................................................36

Figure B-2. Annual cash flow—Primary (yellow shaded) area—Single axis—36,206 kW .........37

Figure B-3. Monthly energy output—Primary (yellow shaded) area—Single axis—36,206 kW.38

Figure B-4. Levelized cost of energy—Primary (yellow shaded) area—Fixed axis— 

43,902 kW ................................................................................................................................39

Figure B-5. Annual cash flow—Primary (yellow shaded) area—Fixed axis—43,902 kW ..........40

Figure B-6. Monthly energy output—Primary (yellow shaded) area—Fixed axis—43,902 kW ..41

Figure B-7. Levelized cost of energy—Industrial (red shaded) area—Single axis—40,948 kW .42

Figure B-8. Annual cash flow—Industrial (red shaded) area—Single axis—40,948 kW .............43

Figure B-9. Monthly energy output—Industrial (red shaded) area—Single axis—40,948 kW ....44

Figure B-10. Annual cash flow—Industrial (red shaded) area—Fixed axis—49,651 kW ............45

Figure B-11. Levelized cost of energy—Industrial (red shaded) area—Fixed axis—49,651 kW 46

Figure B-12. Monthly energy output—Industrial (red shaded) area—Fixed axis—49,651 kW ...47

Figure B-14. Levelized cost of energy—Wind turbine (green shaded) area—Single axis— 

10,021 kW ................................................................................................................................48

Figure B-15. Annual cash flow—Wind turbine (green shaded) area—Single axis—10,021 kW .49

Figure B-16. Monthly energy output—Wind turbine (green shaded) area—Single axis— 

10,021 kW ................................................................................................................................50

Figure B-17. Levelized cost of energy—Wind turbine (green shaded) area—Fixed axis— 

12,152 kW ................................................................................................................................51

Figure B-18. Annual cash flow—Wind turbine (green shaded) area—Fixed axis—12,152 kW ..52

Figure B-19. Monthly energy output—Wind turbine (green shaded) area—Fixed axis— 

12,152 kW ................................................................................................................................53

Figure B-20. Levelized cost of energy—Highly contaminated (purple shaded) area—Single 

axis—9,626 kW .......................................................................................................................54

Figure B-21. Annual cash flow—Highly contaminated (purple shaded) area—Single axis— 

9,626 kW ..................................................................................................................................55

Figure B-22. Monthly energy output—Highly contaminated (purple shaded) area—Single axis—

9,626 kW ..................................................................................................................................56

Figure B-23. Levelized cost of energy—Highly contaminated (purple shaded) area—Fixed 

axis—11,672 kW .....................................................................................................................57
ix

Figure B-24. Annual cash flow—Highly contaminated (purple shaded) area—Fixed axis—

11,672 kW ................................................................................................................................58

Figure B-25. Monthly energy output—Highly contaminated (purple shaded) area—Fixed axis—

11,672 kW ................................................................................................................................59

Figure B-26. Levelized cost of energy—Net-metering limit—Single axis—2,000 kW ...............60

Figure B-27. Annual cash flow—Net-metering limit—Single axis—2,000 kW ...........................61

Figure B-28. Monthly energy output—Net-metering limit—Single axis—2,000 kW ..................62

Figure B-29. Levelized cost of energy—Net-metering limit—Fixed axis—2,000 kW ................63

Figure B-30. Annual cash flow—Net-metering limit—Fixed axis—2,000 kW ............................64

Figure B-31. Monthly energy output—Net-metering limit—Fixed axis—2,000 kW ...................65

Figure B-32. Levelized cost of energy—Capacity-based incentive limit—Single axis—50 kW .66

Figure B-33. Annual cash flow—Capacity-based incentive limit—Single axis—50 kW .............67

Figure B-34. Monthly energy output—Capacity-based incentive limit—Single axis—50 kW ....68

Figure B-35. Levelized cost of energy—Capacity-based incentive limit—Fixed axis—50 kW ..69

Figure B-36. Annual cash flow—Capacity-based incentive limit—Fixed axis—50 kW ..............70

Figure B-37. Monthly energy output—Capacity-based incentive limit—Fixed axis—50 kW .....71

Figure B-38. Levelized cost of energy—Largest system with positive NPV—Fixed axis—

862 kW .....................................................................................................................................72

Figure B-39. Annual cash flow—Largest system with positive NPV—Fixed axis—862 kW ......73

Figure B-40. Monthly energy output—Largest system with positive NPV—Fixed axis— 

862 kW .....................................................................................................................................74

Figure D-1. Lackawanna site light industrial building eQUEST model representation ................80

Figure D-2. Lackawanna site light industrial eQUEST results for annual energy use ..................82
x 

List of Tables

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

Table ES-2. Former Bethlehem Steel Plant PV System Summary ................................................ vi

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

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

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

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

Table 5. Performance Results for 20-Degree Single-Axis PV ......................................................19

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

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

Table 8. Summary of SAM Results ...............................................................................................23

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

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

Table A-1. Cost, System, and Other Assessment Assumptions ....................................................33

Table A-2. SAM Modeling Assumptions ......................................................................................33

Table A-3. Full Incentive Information ...........................................................................................35

Table C-1. JEDI Model Single-Axis Tracking Project Data Summary .........................................75

Table C-2. JEDI Model Single-Axis Tracking Local Economic Impacts Summary .....................76

Table C-3. JEDI Model Single-Axis Tracking Detailed PV Project Data Costs Summary ..........77

Table C-4. JEDI Model Single-Axis Tracking PV System Annual Operating and Maintenance 

Costs .........................................................................................................................................78

Table D-1. Lackawanna Site Light Industrial Building eQUEST Summary Information ............81
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 Former Bethlehem Steel Plant site in 

Lackawanna, New York, for a feasibility study of renewable energy production. The 

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

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

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

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

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

conditions at the site. 

The Former Bethlehem Steel Plant is located on the west side of Lackawanna, New York, 

which is located on the east coast of Lake Erie and is south of the City of Buffalo. 

Lackawanna has a population of 18,141 as of the 2010 census. Lackawanna experiences 

summers that are warm and humid with high temperatures typically in the 80o

F range. 

The winters are cold and snowy with low temperatures in the 20oF range. Lackawanna

has on average 158 days of sunshine each year. National Grid is the utility that provides 

electricity to Lackawanna, and it is a deregulated utility. 

The site is approximately 1,100 acres. The major components and buildings related to 

steel mill have been removed, but some remnants of the steel mill still remain. The site 

owner is open to removing any structures that could inhibit a large-scale solar PV plant. 

Currently, the west side of the site has fourteen 2.5-MW wind turbines, which require a 

500-ft easement around each turbine. The middle portion of the site is mostly free of 

structures and other shading obstructions. The eastern portion of the site along the 

Hamburg Highway has some light industrial buildings, and there are future plans to 

further build out this area with more light industrial buildings. The southwest corner of 

the site is the most contaminated area and remediation efforts are underway in this area. 

The major contaminants at the site are related to approximately 80 years of steel 

production at the site. Currently, the most contaminated area is located in the southwest 

portion of the site. 

The closest electrical tie-in location is on site, and the Steel Winds project ties into this 

substation on site. The 30-acre eastern portion of the site currently has a large-scale wind 

turbine plant named the Steel Winds Project. The Steel Winds Project is a great success 

story of turning a brownfield site into a productive parcel of land. The Steel Winds 

Project was built in two phases with the first phase completed in 2007 and the second 

phase completed in 2012. The total project is composed of fourteen 2.5-MW turbines, for 

a total of 35 MW. Having a substation on site makes it an ideal location for a PV system 

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

electric utility, National Grid, to determine the feasibility of utilizing the on-site 

substation as a tie-in point for a PV system. The site is planned to have buildings, but the 

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

off-takers of the electricity produced by a PV system. 
2 

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

conducted a site visit on Tuesday, April 3, 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 Brownfield

Sites 

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

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

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

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

residential redevelopment 

• Might be adequately zoned for renewable energy

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

infrastructure

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

costs or low real estate development demand 

• Can provide job opportunities in urban and rural communities 

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

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

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

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

The Former Bethlehem Steel Plant is owned by ArcelorMittal Tecumseh Redevelopment, 

Inc., which is interested in potential revenue flows on the site. For many brownfield sites, 

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

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

vision for the site. For the Lackawanna site, the vision of the community aligns well with 

the vision of the developer. The purpose of this study is to analyze all options so that an 

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

Understanding opportunities studied and realized by other similar sites demonstrates the 

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

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

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

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

Solar project was completed in 2010 and is a 10-MW single-axis tracking system.2

 

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. There is potential to 

build light industrial buildings on the site as the community sees fit. As has been 

mentioned, the Steel Winds Project is an example of a success story for installing large-

 

2 “Exelon City Solar.” Accessed July 2012: 

http://www.exeloncorp.com/PowerPlants/exeloncitysolar/Pages/Profile.aspx. 
4 

scale wind turbines on a brownfield site. Further development of wind at the site could 

be pursued. 

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 

• 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 (PPA) linked to renewable 

energy systems

• Generating energy without harmful emissions or waste products can be 

accomplished through renewable energy sources.
5 

3 PV Systems

3.1 PV Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 1. Generation of electricity from a PV cell

Source: EPA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

commonly sold back to the electricity grid. 

(-)

(+)

-

- -

-

Electron

Current flow

-

Solar cell

- - -

Load
6 

3.2 Major System Components

Figure 2. Ground-mounted array diagram

Source: NREL

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

• PV modules 

• Inverter

• Balance-of-system (BOS) components. 

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

3.2.1 PV Module

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

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

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

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

3.2.1.1 Crystalline Silicon

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

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

technology has been demonstrated for a consistent and high efficiency over 30 years in 

the field. The performance degradation, a reduction in power generation due to long-term 

exposure, is 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 based on 

deployments worldwide. 

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

installed on tracking mounting systems.

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

NREL 23816 and (right) SunPower, NREL 13823

3.2.1.2 Thin Film

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

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

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

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

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

rigid constructions that can be used in fixed tilt or, in some cases, tracking system 

configurations. 

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

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

for CdTe. Figure 4 shows thin-film solar panels. 
8 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.2 Inverter

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

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

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

to that frequency. When utility power is not present, the inverter will stop producing AC 

power to prevent “islanding,” or putting power into the grid while utility workers are 

trying to fix what they assume is a de-energized distribution system. This safety feature is 

built into all grid-connected inverters in the market. Electricity produced from the system 

might be fed to a step-up transformer to increase the voltage to match the grid. 

There are two primary types of inverters for grid-connected systems: string and microinverters. Each type has strengths and weaknesses and might 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, as well as have high efficiency and lower 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 
9 

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. 

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

3.2.3 Balance-of-System Components

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

called BOS components, which include: 

• Mounting racks and hardware for the panels 

• Wiring for electrical connections. 

3.2.3.1 Mounting Systems

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

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

3.2.3.1.1 Ground-Mounted Systems

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

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

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

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

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

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

designs will be primarily driven by these considerations coupled with settlement 

concerns. 

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

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

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

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

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

tracking systems. 

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

the sky. This increases energy output but also increases maintenance and equipment costs 
10 

slightly. Single-axis tracking, in which PV is rotated on a single axis, can increase energy 

output up to 25% or more. With dual-axis tracking, PV is able to directly face the sun all 

day, potentially increasing output up to 35% or more. Depending on underlying soiling 

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

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

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

System Type Fixed-Tilt Energy Density 

(DC-Watts/ft2

) 

Single-Axis Tracking 

Energy Density

(DC-Watts/ft2

) 

Crystalline Silicon 4.0 3.3

Thin Film 3.3 2.7

Hybrid High 

Efficiency

4.8 3.9

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

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

Contaminated land applications could 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. 

3.2.3.1.2 Roof-Mounted Systems

At the Former Bethlehem Steel Plant site, there is the potential to use the roof area of 

future light industrial buildings for PV. Installing PV on rooftops has many of the same 

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

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

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

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

that the roof be relatively new (less than 5 years old) to avoid having to move the PV 

system in order to repair or replace the roof. 

The development plan at the Former Bethlehem Steel Plant site has new construction 

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

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

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

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

are examples of measures that can be taken to optimize rooftop PV systems.3

 

 

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

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

Table 2. Rooftop Energy Density by Panel

System Type Fixed-Tilt Energy Density 

(DC-Watts/ft2

) 

Crystalline Silicon 10.0 

Thin Film 4.3 

3.2.3.2 Wiring for Electrical Connections

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

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

equipment protection. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.3.3 PV System Monitoring 

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

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

more sophisticated monitoring and control purposes, environmental data, such as module 

temperature, ambient temperature, solar radiation, and wind speed, can be collected. 

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

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

stored in the inverter’s memory or in external data loggers for further system analysis. 

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

landfill applications.

Weather stations are typically installed in large-scale systems. Weather data, such as solar 

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

of the target and actual system output and performance and identification of underperforming arrays. Operators can also use this data to identify required maintenance, 

shade on panels, and accumulating dirt on panels, for example. Monitoring system data 

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

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

3.2.4 Operation and Maintenance

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

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

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

analysis uses an annual O&M cost computed as $20/kW/yr, which is based on the 
12 

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

should expect a replacement of system inverters in year 15 at a cost of $0.25/W. 

3.3 Siting Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

located. By finding the solar access, the NREL team can determine if the area is 

appropriate for solar panels.

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

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

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

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

utility policy. 
13 

4 Proposed Installation Location Information

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

April 3, 2012. 

4.1 Former Bethlehem Steel Plant Site PV System

As discussed in Section 1, the Former Bethlehem Steel Plant site is owned by 

ArcelorMittal Tecumseh Redevelopment, Inc. 

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 Former Bethlehem Steel Plant site is approximately 1,100 acres, and there is 

potential to build out a portion of the site with a ground-mounted PV system and build 

out a portion of the site with light industrial buildings that have roof-mounted PV. The 

site is relatively flat, but some grading will be necessary in some areas to accommodate a

ground-mounted PV system. The entire site could be feasible for PV after any 

remediation measures are completed. There is a plan to develop the eastern side of the 

site with light industrial buildings. These light industrial buildings would be new 

construction and the rooftops are potential areas for PV systems. Because the buildings 

are new construction, they could easily be designed to be “solar ready,” even if the 

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

There are currently 325 acres available for a ground-mounted PV system in the leftcenter of the site, and 93 acres available for a ground-mounted PV system using microinverters around the Steel Winds large-scale wind site (micro-inverters are selected for 

this area because there will be some shading from the wind turbines). There are 

approximately 364 acres potentially available for roof-mounted PV systems on the 

northeast side on the site; however, 60% of the 364 acres is estimated to be available roof 

space. While this entire area does not need to be developed at one time due to the 

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

this analysis reflect the solar potential if the total feasible area is used. It should be noted 

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

investigate various options and present the results in an unbiased manner. 

Figure 6 shows an aerial view of the potential areas for PV at the Former Bethlehem Steel 

Plant site taken from Google Earth; the feasible area for ground-mounted micro-inverter 

PV is shaded in green; the feasible area for ground-mounted PV is shaded in yellow; the 

light industrial building rooftop PV is shaded in red; and the highly contaminated area is 

shaded in purple. The yellow, red, and green sections were given various “packing 

factors,” which define how much of the area would be able to house PV arrays. The 

yellow shaded area is assumed to be able to fill 80% of the defined area with PV panels. 

The green area has a 75% packing factor due to the existing wind turbines, and the red 

area has a packing factor of 60%. As shown, there are large expanses of relatively flat, 

un-shaded land, which makes it a suitable candidate for a ground-mounted PV system. 
14 

There are also large expanses of possible un-shaded rooftop area, which makes it a 

suitable candidate for rooftop PV systems.

Figure 6. Aerial view of the feasible areas for PV at the Former Bethlehem Steel Plant 

(ground-mounted micro-inverter PV in green; ground-mounted PV in yellow; light 

industrial rooftop PV in red; highly contaminated area in purple) 

Illustration done in Google Earth

PV systems are not well suited to the Lackawanna area, where the average global 

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

direct, diffuse, and ground-reflected radiation—is 4.02 kWh/m2/day. Figure 7 and 

Figure 8 show various views of the Former Bethlehem Steel Plant site. 
15 

Figure 7. Views of the feasible area for ground-mounted PV at the Lackawanna site. 

Photos by Jimmy Salasovich, NREL
16 

Figure 8. Views of the feasible area for ground-mounted PV with micro-inverters at the 

Steel Winds portion of the Lackawanna site. Photos by Jimmy Salasovich, NREL

4.2 Utility-Resource Considerations

The closest electrical tie-in location is on site at the National Grid substation where the 

Steel Winds project ties into the electric grid. The location of the National Grid

substation in relation to the Lackawanna site is given in Figure 9. As shown, the 

substation is located in the southeast corner of the site, which could make it an ideal 

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

performed through National Grid to determine the feasibility of utilizing the on-site 

substation as a tie-in point for a PV system. The site is planned to have buildings, but the 

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

off-takers of the electricity produced by a PV system. 
17 

Figure 9. Location of on-site substation in relation to the Lackawanna site

Illustration done in Google Earth

4.3 Useable Acreage for PV System Installation 

Typically, a minimum of 2 useable acres is recommended to site 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, industrial site space, or existing building rooftops). 

4.4 PV Site Solar Resource

The Former Bethlehem Steel Plant 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 of 90% or higher. 

The predicted array performance was found using PVWatts Version 2 for Lackawanna.

4

Table 3 shows the station identification information, PV system specifications, and 

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

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

kilowatt so that additional analyses can be performed using the same data. It is scaled 

linearly to match the proposed system size. 

 

4 PVWatts. Accessed March 12, 2013: http://www.nrel.gov/rredc/pvwatts/. 
18 

Table 3. Site Identification Information and Specifications

Station Identification

Cell ID 0259365

State New York

Latitude 43.0° N

Longitude 78.7° W

PV System Specifications

DC Rating 1.00 kW

DC-to-AC Derate Factor 0.8 

AC Rating 0.8 kW

Array Type Fixed Tilt 

Array Tilt 20°

Array Azimuth 180°

Energy Specifications

Cost of Electricity $0.12/kWh

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

Lackawanna, as calculated by PVWatts.

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

Month Solar Radiation

(kWh/m2

/day)

AC Energy

(kWh)

Energy Value

($)

1 2.07 52 6.24

2 2.86 67 8.04

3 4.16 105 12.60

4 4.90 116 13.92

5 5.73 134 16.08

6 6.05 133 15.96

7 5.98 134 16.08

8 5.39 122 14.64

9 4.52 100 12.00

10 3.25 77 9.24

11 1.99 45 5.40

12 1.72 41 4.92

Year 4.06 1,126 135.12

Table 5 shows the performance results for a zero-tilt single-axis tracking PV system in 

Lackawanna, as calculated by PVWatts. 
19 

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

Month Solar Radiation

(kWh/m2/day)

AC Energy

(kWh)

Energy Value

($)

1 2.36 61 7.32

2 3.32 79 9.48

3 5.04 129 15.48

4 5.97 143 17.16

5 7.13 170 20.40

6 7.60 170 20.40

7 7.69 176 21.12

8 6.81 157 18.84

9 5.57 126 15.12

10 3.88 93 11.16

11 2.27 53 6.36

12 1.93 47 5.64

Year 4.97 1,403 168.36

4.5 Former Bethlehem Steel Plant Energy Usage

The Former Bethlehem Steel Plant site currently has buildings on the site that use 

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

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

whether or not energy produced would need to be sold or if it could offset on-site 

energy use.

4.5.1 Current Energy Use

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

or cost data was available for the site. 

4.5.2 Estimated Future Energy Use and Net-Zero Energy Potential

4.5.2.1 Light Industrial Buildings Assuming a 10% Build-Out of the Area

The build-out of the site that could have various light industrial buildings has not yet 

been designed, and therefore no drawings for the potential future build-out of the site are 

available. The build-out of the site was assumed to be 10% of the available 364 acres, 

which is approximately 1.6 million square feet of light industrial building area. The 

future light industrial buildings were all assumed to be one-story buildings that are each 

100,000 square feet. 

The future energy use of the light industrial buildings on the site was estimated by 

creating a building energy model of a typical light industrial building and details of the 

energy model are given in Appendix D. It is important to note that buildings were 

assumed to be electric buildings and energy efficient buildings with tight construction, 

low lighting and equipment energy use, and ground- or lake-source heat pump with 

backup electric boiler systems. The estimated total building area of the site build-out is 

approximately 1.6 million square feet. Using the energy model, the total annual energy 

use of the site is estimated to be approximately 18 million kWh/yr. In order for the light 

industrial buildings on site to be net-zero, a 12.85-MW PV system would have to be 

installed to offset the energy use of the buildings, which assumes the solar PV system 
20 

offsets all of the building energy use. The 35-MW large-scale wind plant was not 

included in the net-zero estimates, but it would contribute an estimated 

50 million kWh/year to offset the electricity use. 

4.5.3 Net Metering

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

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

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

system owner receives retail credit for the electricity it generates up to a designated 

system capacity. As part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, under Sec. 1251, all public 

electric utilities are required upon request to make net metering available to 

their customers:

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

request net metering service to any electric consumer that the electric 

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

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

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

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

offset electric energy provided by the electric utility to the electric 

consumer during the applicable billing period. 

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

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

aggregate demand. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12-month cycle. 

4.5.4 Virtual Net Metering

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

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

1-MW limit at one location within its geographic boundary and to generate credits that 

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

boundary. New York currently does not offer VNM to PV generators. 
21 

5 Economics and Performance

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

combination of the assumptions and background information discussed previously as well 

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

study uses NREL’s System Advisor Model (SAM).5 

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. 

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

geothermal power systems and economic estimates for distributed energy and central 

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

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

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

5.1 Assumptions and Input Data for Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

market conditions evolve. 

The installed system cost assumptions are summarized in Table 6. For this analysis the 

installed cost of the baseline fixed-tilt ground-mounted systems was assumed to be 

$2.79/W, and the installed cost of single-axis tracking was assumed to be $3.34/W. For 

the high contamination area of the site, a ballasted system will be required. This will add 

25% to the baseline scenario. The area next to the existing wind turbines will require 

micro-inverters in order to operate effectively with the turbine shading. Micro-inverters 

increase the installed cost by 10% and decrease the O&M costs for this scenario. These 

costs represent remediation consideration cost case scenarios for PV installation price on 

EPA brownfields. 

 

5 For additional information on the System Advisor Model, see https://sam.nrel.gov/cost. 
22 

Table 6. Installed System Cost Assumptions

System Type Fixed Tilt 

($/Wp) 

Single-Axis Tracking 

($/Wp) 

Baseline System 2.79 3.34

+ Ballasted System 

(25%)

0.70 0.84

+ Micro-Inverters (10%) 0.30 0.33

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. This includes 

estimated taxes and a national-average labor rate but does not include land cost. The 

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

and panel tilt and orientation. 

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

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

as cost effective as possible. 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 50% of 

the initial system cost in Lackawanna. Because state and federal governments do not pay 

taxes, private ownership of the PV system would be required to capture tax incentives. 

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

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

standard assumptions can be found in Appendix A. For the purposes of modeling how 

much PV could cover rooftops and spaces on site, it was assumed that 80% of the land 

space could contain PV. PVWatts Version 2 was used to calculate expected energy 

performance for the system. 

The list of incentives used in this study can be found in Table 7 with the full descriptions 

and sources found in Appendix A. Incentives were found on the Database of State 

Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE) website, which catalogs most 

incentives to the state level.

6 Local incentives not included on the DSIRE website were 

not included in the modeling. 

 

6 Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE). http://www.dsireusa.org/. 
23 

Table 7. Summary of Incentives Evaluated

Incentive Title Modeled Value Expected End 

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

Federal Investment Tax Credit 30% of total investment 2016

Accelerated MACRS Schedule

Bonus 50% in the first 

year for Federal 

Depreciation -

Net Metering Net meter up to 2 MW -

Sales Tax Exemption 0% Sales Tax -

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

5.2 SAM-Forecasted Economic Performance

Using varied inputs and the assumptions summarized in Section 5.1, SAM predicts net 

present value (NPV), PPA, and levelized cost of energy (LCOE). A total of 10 models 

were run for the Former Bethlehem Steel Plant to encompass the many options available 

to this site. These options included community and developer site recommendations; roof 

space and ground space utilization; fixed and single-axis tracking for the ground portion; 

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

go into choosing which scenario(s) to use beyond NPV, PPA and LCOE; however, Table 

8 shows the different options and their results. 

Table 8. Summary of SAM Results

Cases System Cost LCOE

($/kWh)

NPV PPA

($/kWh)

Payback

(years)

Single-Axis Ground 

System - Net Meter 

Maximum

$ 6,700,000 0.1026 $ (46,780) - 14.8

Fixed-Axis Ground 

System - Net Meter 

Maximum

$ 5,580,000 0.1091 $ (461,765) - 18.5

Single-Axis Ground 

System – MicroInverters Near Wind 

Turbines

$ 40,509,893 0.1136 $ (4,058,268) 0.1913 19.6

Fixed-Axis Ground 

System – MicroInverters Near Wind 

Turbines

$ 38,681,060 0.1203 $ (4,977,595) 0.2017 21.1

Single-Axis Ground 

System - Highly 

Contaminated Area

$ 55,383,420 0.1138 $ (9,269,563) 0.2066 22.7
24 

Fixed-Axis Ground 

System - Highly 

Contaminated Area

$ 55,934,230 0.1299 $ (8,170,200) 0.2180 24.2

Single-Axis Ground 

System - Industrial 

Complex

$ 105,119,650 0.1038 $ (18,389,547) 0.1746 24.5

Fixed Axis Ground 

System - Industrial 

Complex

$ 106,156,710 0.1107 $ (20,782,942) 0.1854 -

Single-Axis Ground 

System - Primary Area

$ 125,142,600 0.1038 $ (23,256,722) 0.1742 -

Fixed-Axis Ground 

System - Primary Area

$ 126,375,840 0.1107 $ (26,072,800) 0.1854 -

50-kW Fixed-Axis 

System

$ 139,500 0.0464 $ 30,036 - 4.6

50-kW Single-Axis 

System

$ 167,500 0.0524 $33,412 - 5.4

862-kW – Breakeven

Sized System

$ 2,887,700 0.1009 $ 19 - 14.6

The analysis breaks down each system that would be installed in each highlighted area in 

Figure 6. It also includes various systems sized to different incentive limits. The best 

system size economically is 50 kW, which maxes out the New York PV Incentive 

Program. The largest system size that modeled a positive NPV is 862 kW. Any system 

larger than 862 kW has a NPV less than $0 under current incentive conditions. The site 

does not have adequate solar resource, and combined with few incentives, prices for solar 

energy on site become prohibitively expensive. New incentives and higher prices for both 

purchase and sale electricity would improve the economics and increase the size of 

economically viable systems. All of the different options have pros and cons that will 

play in deciding the correct path forward. 

5.2.1 Fixed Plate Versus Single-Axis Tracking 

According to the simulations, single-axis tracking for the ground-mounted system will 

provide the best payback for a slightly lower LCOE. While this may seem like an obvious 

choice, single-axis systems could be considered a higher risk option. Installation costs 

may be higher than modeled due to availability of installers and equipment. Despite 

having similar O&M costs to fixed-axis systems, more moving parts generally lead to 

higher malfunctions. While these higher risk considerations are important for evaluation, 

NREL recommends pursuing single-axis tracking systems for the ground-mounted 

portions of the Former Bethlehem Steel Plant. 
25 

5.2.2 Third-Party PPA Versus Developer Owned

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

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

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

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

and profit, and the Former Bethlehem Steel Plant in turn will receive power from the PV 

system at a rate determined by the investor. The recommendation of the feasibility team 

is to not pursue a PPA because the economic benefit below the net-metering ceiling of 

2 MW is likely higher than the price for electricity from the utility. A PPA should be 

pursued, however, if the owner prefers the value of the PPA over ownership and upkeep. 

5.2.3 Possible Ways to Improve the Economics Not Modeled

The economics for a PV system at the Former Bethlehem Steel Plant could be feasible 

under slightly lower installed prices, slightly higher electricity prices, or incentives from 

policies. If the installed cost for single-axis tracking modules were to fall to $3.28/W, the 

2-MW net-metering system would become economically viable. If the price for 

electricity were to increase by $0.01, both of the net-meter cases would become 

economically feasible. One incentive available to the City of Lackawanna is to opt back 

into the property tax exemption currently available by the State of New York. This alone 

would make the 2-MW net-metering systems viable with both fixed- and single-axis 

tracking. Likewise, if there was an investment-based incentive worth 2% of the project, 

or $134,000, the system would be feasible. 

The entire results and summary of inputs to SAM are available in Appendix B. 

A full summary of the results of the economic analysis and the systems modeled is 

available in Table 9. This table shows the sizes, number of homes powered, and jobs 

created through construction and maintenance for each system modeled. It also includes 

the full results for each system.
26 

Table 9. PV System Summary
27 

5.3 Job Analysis and Impact

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

analysis, NREL’s Jobs and Economic Development Impact (JEDI) models are used.7

JEDI estimates the economic impacts associated with the construction and operation of 

distributed generation power plants. It is a flexible input-output tool that estimates, but 

does not precisely predict, the number of jobs and economic impacts that can be 

reasonably supported by the proposed facility. 

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

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

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

the associated construction materials, metal fabrication industry, project management 

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

and installation of the complete system. 

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

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

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

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

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

results are considered gross estimates as opposed to net estimates. 

For the Former Bethlehem Steel Plant site, the values in Table 10 were assumed. 

Table 10. JEDI Analysis Assumptions

Input Assumed Value

Capacity 2,000 kW

Year Placed In Service 2013

Installed System Cost $6,700,000

Location Lackawanna, NY

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

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

proposed PV system 

The estimates of jobs associated with this project are presented as either construction 

period jobs or sustained operations jobs. Each job is expressed as a whole, or fraction, 

full-time equivalent (FTE) position. An FTE is defined as one person working 40 hours 

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

positions that exist only during the procurement and construction periods. 

 

7 JEDI has been used by the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, NREL, and 

the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, as well as a number of universities. For information on the 

NREL Jobs and Economic Development Impact tool, see 

http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/jedi/about_jedi.html.
28 

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

proposed system is estimated to support 49.1 direct and indirect jobs per year for the 

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

the construction period are estimated to be $2,839,600, and total economic output is 

estimated to be $7,230,100. The annual O&M of the new PV system is estimated to 

support 0.7 FTEs per year for the life of the system. The jobs and associated spending are 

projected to account for approximately $43,100 in earnings and $74,400 in economic 

activity each year for the next 25 years. 

5.4 Financing Opportunities

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

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

5.4.1 Owner and Operator Financing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

credits offered. 

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

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

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

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

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

5.4.2 Third-Party Developers with Power Purchase Agreements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wholesale transaction. 
29 

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

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

5.4.3 Third-Party “Flip” Agreements

The most common use of the third-party “flip” agreement model is a site host working 

with a third-party developer who then partners with a tax-motivated investor in an SPE

that would own and operate the project. Initially, most of the equity provided to the SPE 

would come from the tax investor and most of the benefit would flow to the tax investor 

(as much as 99%). When the tax investor has fully monetized the tax benefits and 

achieved an agreed-upon rate of return, the allocation of benefits and majority ownership 

(95%) would flip to the site host (but not within the first 5 years). After the flip, the site 

host would have the option to buy out all or most of the tax investor’s interest in the 

project at the fair market value of the tax investor’s remaining interest. 

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

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

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

5.4.4 Hybrid Financial Structures

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

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

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

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

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

Tax Credits have been combined with PPAs and public debt in other locations, such as 

Denver and Salt Lake City. 

5.4.5 Solar Services Agreement and Operating Lease

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

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

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

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

result, a number of business models have emerged as a workaround to this issue. One 

model is the SSA wherein a private party sells solar services [i.e., energy and renewable 

energy certificates (RECs)] to a municipality over a specified contract period (typically 

long enough for the private party to accrue the tax credits). The non-profit utility 

typically purchases the solar services with either a one-time up-front payment equal to 

the turn-key system cost minus the 30% federal tax credit or may 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 
30 

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 

third-party 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.

5.4.6 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 using the solar system, the public or private entity 

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

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

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

benefits are exhausted. 

5.4.7 Community Solar/Solar Gardens

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

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

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

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

owned or sponsored by a local utility. Community solar gardens are distributed solar 

projects wherein utility customers have a stake via a pro-rated share of the project’s 

energy output. This business model is targeted to meet demand for solar projects by 

customers who rent/lease homes or businesses, do not have good solar access at their site, 

or do not want to install solar system on their facilities. Customer pro-rated shares of 

solar projects are acquired through a long-term transferrable lease of one or more panels, 

or they subscribe to a share of the project in terms of a specific level of energy output or 

the energy output of a set amount of capacity. Under the customer lease option, the 

customer receives a billing credit for the number of kilowatt-hours their pro-rated share 

of the solar project produces each month; it is also known as VNM. Under the customer 

subscription option, customers typically pay a set price for a block of solar energy (i.e., 

100 kWh per-month blocks) from the community solar project. Other models include 

monthly energy outputs from a specific investment dollar amount or a specific number 

of panels. 

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

by the utility, solely owned by third-party developers with facilitation of billing provided 

by the utility, or a joint venture between the utility and a third-party developer leading to 
31 

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). 
32 

6 Conclusions and Recommendations 

PV arrays at the Lackawanna site are economically feasible at smaller sizes that 

maximize the incentives available in New York. The best size economically is the 50-kW 

single-axis system with an NPV of $33,412, and the largest system that remains 

economically attractive is an 862-kW single-axis system. These systems should be 

pursued through site ownership rather than with solar developers because currently the 

modeled PPA prices are higher than the cost for electricity. 

Installing PV systems on the Former Bethlehem Steel Plant, which would cover the entire 

usable space for PV arrays, could potentially generate 131,637,776 MWh annually, 

producing nearly 7.5 times the electricity modeled for the site. 

The inclusion of large-scale PV is not currently an economically viable option, but small 

changes in policy, PV cost, or electricity could make 2-MW systems, which take full 

advantage of the net-metering policy, viable. One incentive that is available to the City of 

Lackawanna is to opt back into the property tax exemption currently available by the 

State of New York. This would make 2-MW systems viable with both fixed and singleaxis tracking. The breakeven price for a 2-MW single-axis system is $3.28/W. Likewise, 

if there was an investment-based incentive worth 2% of the project, or $134,000, the 

system would be feasible. Finally, if the price for electricity were to increase by $0.01, 

both of the net-meter cases would become economically feasible.
33 

Appendix A. Assessment and Calculations 

Assumptions

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

Table A-2. SAM Modeling Assumptions

Item PPA/Investor

Municipal 

Purchase Notes

Analysis period 

(years) 25 25

Inflation 2.50% 2.50%

Real discount rate 5.85% 3%

Federal tax rate 35% 0%

State tax rate 8% 0%

Insurance (% of 

installed cost) 0.50% 0.50%

Property tax 0 0

Construction loan 0 0

Loan term 15 25 25-year bonds

Loan rate 6% 6% May be lower for bonds

Debt fraction 55% 100%

45%–60% PPA, 100% 

municipal ownership, DebtService Coverage Ratio of 

~1.3 (>1.2)

Minimum internal 

rate of return 15% 15%

PPA escalation 

rate 1.5% 1.5%

Cost Assumptions

Variable Quantity of 

Variable

Unit of Variable

Cost of Site Electricity 0.05 $/kWh

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

System Assumptions

System Type Annual energy 

kWh/kW

Installed Cost 

($/W)

Energy Density 

(W/sq. ft.) 

Ground Fixed 1,126 $3.49 4.0

Ground Single-Axis 1,403 $4.18 3.3

Other Assumptions

1 acre 43,560 ft2

1 MW 1,000,000 W

Ground 

utilization

90% of available 

area
34 

Federal

depreciation

5-year MACRS with 

50% first-year 

bonus N/A N/A for municipal ownership 

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

Federal

investment tax 

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

Payment 

incentives 0 0

Degradation 0.50% 0.50%

Availability 100% 100%

Cost - fixed axis 

per kW $2.79–$3.20 $2.79–$3.20

Cost – single-axis 

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

Cost - landfill 

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

Grid 

interconnection 

cost $ - $ - 

Land cost $ - $ - 

O&M

$30/kW/yr first 15 

yrs and $20/kW/yr

for yrs 16-25

$30/kW/yr first 15 

yrs and $20/kW/yr

for yrs 16-25

Derate factor 0.8 0.8

Fixed tilt 20° 20°

Single-axis tilt 20° 20°

Acres per MW 

fixed 5.74 5.74 

Acres per MW 

tracking 6.96 6.96 
35 

Table A-3. Full Incentive Information
36 

 

Appendix B. Results of the System Advisor Model

Figure B-1. Levelized cost of energy—Primary (yellow shaded) area—Single axis—

36,206 kW
37 

Figure B-2. Annual cash flow—Primary (yellow shaded) area—Single axis—36,206 kW
38 

Figure B-3. Monthly energy output—Primary (yellow shaded) area—Single axis—36,206 kW
39 

Figure B-4. Levelized cost of energy—Primary (yellow shaded) area—Fixed axis—

43,902 kW
40 

Figure B-5. Annual cash flow—Primary (yellow shaded) area—Fixed axis—43,902 kW
41 

Figure B-6. Monthly energy output—Primary (yellow shaded) area—Fixed axis—43,902 kW
42 

Figure B-7. Levelized cost of energy—Industrial (red shaded) area—Single axis—

40,948 kW
43 

Figure B-8. Annual cash flow—Industrial (red shaded) area—Single axis—40,948 kW
44 

Figure B-9. Monthly energy output—Industrial (red shaded) area—Single axis—40,948 kW
45 

Figure B-10. Annual cash flow—Industrial (red shaded) area—Fixed axis—49,651 kW
46 

Figure B-11. Levelized cost of energy—Industrial (red shaded) area—Fixed axis—

49,651 kW
47 

Figure B-12. Monthly energy output—Industrial (red shaded) area—Fixed axis—49,651 kW
48 

Figure B-14. Levelized cost of energy—Wind turbine (green shaded) area—Single axis—

10,021 kW
49 

Figure B-15. Annual cash flow—Wind turbine (green shaded) area—Single axis—

10,021 kW
50 

Figure B-16. Monthly energy output—Wind turbine (green shaded) area—Single axis—

10,021 kW
51 

Figure B-17. Levelized cost of energy—Wind turbine (green shaded) area—Fixed axis—

12,152 kW
52 

Figure B-18. Annual cash flow—Wind turbine (green shaded) area—Fixed axis—12,152 kW
53 

Figure B-19. Monthly energy output—Wind turbine (green shaded) area—Fixed axis—

12,152 kW
54 

Figure B-20. Levelized cost of energy—Highly contaminated (purple shaded) area—Single

axis—9,626 kW
55 

Figure B-21. Annual cash flow—Highly contaminated (purple shaded) area—Single axis—

9,626 kW
56 

Figure B-22. Monthly energy output—Highly contaminated (purple shaded) area—Single

axis—9,626 kW
57 

Figure B-23. Levelized cost of energy—Highly contaminated (purple shaded) area—Fixed 

axis—11,672 kW
58 

Figure B-24. Annual cash flow—Highly contaminated (purple shaded) area—Fixed axis—

11,672 kW
59 

Figure B-25. Monthly energy output—Highly contaminated (purple shaded) area—Fixed 

axis—11,672 kW
60 

Figure B-26. Levelized cost of energy—Net-metering limit—Single axis—2,000 kW
61 

Figure B-27. Annual cash flow—Net-metering limit—Single axis—2,000 kW
62 

Figure B-28. Monthly energy output—Net-metering limit—Single axis—2,000 kW
63 

Figure B-29. Levelized cost of energy—Net-metering limit—Fixed axis—2,000 kW
64 

Figure B-30. Annual cash flow—Net-metering limit—Fixed axis—2,000 kW
65 

Figure B-31. Monthly energy output—Net-metering limit—Fixed axis—2,000 kW
66 

Figure B-32. Levelized cost of energy—Capacity-based incentive limit—Single axis—50 kW
67 

Figure B-33. Annual cash flow—Capacity-based incentive limit—Single axis—50 kW
68 

Figure B-34. Monthly energy output—Capacity-based incentive limit—Single axis—50 kW
69 

Figure B-35. Levelized cost of energy—Capacity-based incentive limit—Fixed axis—50 kW
70 

Figure B-36. Annual cash flow—Capacity-based incentive limit—Fixed axis—50 kW
71 

Figure B-37. Monthly energy output—Capacity-based incentive limit—Fixed axis—50 kW
72 

Figure B-38. Levelized cost of energy—Largest system with positive NPV—Fixed axis—

862 kW
73 

Figure B-39. Annual cash flow—Largest system with positive NPV—Fixed axis—862 kW
74 

Figure B-40. Monthly energy output—Largest system with positive NPV—Fixed axis—

862 kW
75 

Appendix C. Results of the Jobs and Economic 

Development Impact Model

Table C-1. JEDI Model Single-Axis Tracking Project Data Summary

Project Location NEW YORK

Year of Construction or Installation 2013

Average System Size - DC Nameplate Capacity (KW) 2,000.0

Number of Systems Installed 1

Project Size - DC Nameplate Capacity (KW) 2,000.0

System Application Utility

Solar Cell/Module Material Crystalline Silicon

System Tracking Single Axis

Total System Base Cost ($/KWDC) $3,412

Annual Direct Operations and Maintenance Cost ($/kW) $25.00

Money Value - Current or Constant (Dollar Year) 2012

Project Construction or Installation Cost $6,823,200

 Local Spending $3,743,196

Total Annual Operational Expenses $828,000

 Direct Operating and Maintenance Costs $50,000

 Local Spending $46,000

 Other Annual Costs $778,000

 Local Spending $800

 Debt Payments $0

 Property Taxes $0
76 

Table C-2. JEDI Model Single-Axis Tracking Local Economic Impacts Summary

Jobs Earnings Output

During construction and installation period $000 (2012) $000 (2012)

 Project Development and Onsite Labor Impacts

 Construction and Installation Labor 8.0 $519.6

 Construction and Installation Related Services 10.5 $632.3

 Subtotal 18.6 $1,151.9 $2,080.8

 Module and Supply Chain Impacts

 Manufacturing Impacts 0.0 $0.0 $0.0

 Trade (Wholesale and Retail) 2.4 $163.7 $469.6

 Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 0.0 $0.0 $0.0

 Professional Services 3.0 $195.7 $589.6

 Other Services 5.6 $499.7 $1,635.2

 Other Sectors 6.9 $160.1 $327.8

 Subtotal 17.9 $1,019.2 $3,022.2

 Induced Impacts 12.6 $668.4 $2,127.1

 Total Impacts 49.1 $2,839.6 $7,230.0

Annual Annual

Annual Earnings Output

During operating years Jobs $000 (2012) $000 (2012)

 Onsite Labor Impacts

 PV Project Labor Only 0.5 $27.9 $27.9

 Local Revenue and Supply Chain Impacts 0.1 $9.4 $27.9

 Induced Impacts 0.1 $5.9 $18.7

 Total Impacts 0.7 $43.1 $74.4

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.
77 

Table C-3. JEDI Model Single-Axis Tracking Detailed PV Project Data Costs Summary

NEW YORK Purchased Manufactured

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

Materials & Equipment

 Mounting (rails, clamps, fittings, etc.) $358,896 100% N

 Modules $2,292,369 100% N

 Electrical (wire, connectors, breakers, etc.) $87,822 100% N

 Inverter $340,916 100% N

 Subtotal $3,080,004

Labor

 Installation $519,620 100%

 Subtotal $519,620

Subtotal $3,599,624

Other Costs

 Permitting $36,552 100%

 Other Costs $807,794 100%

 Business Overhead $2,256,030 100%

 Subtotal $3,100,376

Subtotal $6,700,000

Sales Tax (Materials & Equipment Purchases) $123,200 100%

Total $6,823,200
78 

Table C-4. JEDI Model Single-Axis Tracking PV System Annual Operating and Maintenance 

Costs

Cost Local Share

Manufactured 

Locally (Y or N)

Labor

 Technicians $30,000 100%

 Subtotal $30,000

Materials and Services

 Materials & Equipment $20,000 100% N

 Services $0 100%

 Subtotal $20,000

Sales Tax (Materials & Equipment Purchases) $800 100%

Average Annual Payment (Interest and Principal) $777,200 0%

Property Taxes $0 100%

Total $828,000

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) 100%

 Local Property Taxes $0 100%

 Local Sales Tax Rate 4.00% 100%

 Sales Tax Exemption (percent of local taxes) 0%

Payroll Parameters Wage per hour Employer Payroll Overhead

 Construction and Installation Labor

 Construction Workers / Installers $21.39 45.6%

 O&M Labor

 Technicians $21.39 45.6%
79 

Appendix D. Building Energy Modeling

Building energy modeling was used to estimate the energy use of the proposed building 

types, which include light industrial buildings. Because none of the proposed buildings at 

the Lackawanna site have been designed, the building geometry, construction, lighting, 

equipment, and HVAC systems were all assumed. eQUEST was selected as the building 

simulation software tool to perform the energy modeling of this site. eQUEST is a 

commercially available interface for the DOE-2 hourly building energy simulation 

program originally developed by the Department of Energy The program is capable of 

evaluating energy and energy cost savings that can be achieved by applying energy 

conservation measures, such as improved envelope components, passive heating and 

cooling strategies, lighting system improvements, and HVAC system improvements. The 

software is commonly used to analyze new construction buildings and building retrofits.

eQUEST requires a detailed description of the building envelope (for thermal and optical 

properties), internal loads, operating schedules, lighting and HVAC system requirements, 

and utility rate schedules. The major benefits of eQUEST include the ease of defining 

building geometry, space characteristics, schedules, HVAC systems, and running 

parametric analyses to study design and retrofit options. Another major benefit of 

eQUEST is the relatively short simulation run times. 

An eQUEST building energy model of a light industrial building at the Lackawanna site 

was created. The building construction, lighting, equipment, and operating condition of 

HVAC systems were modeled assuming that the building would have advanced energy 

efficiency features and the building would be an all-electric building that uses a lakesource heat pump system with backup electric boilers. The light industrial building that 

was modeled is described in detail in the next section. 

Lackawanna Light Industrial Building Energy Model

A sample light industrial building was modeled in eQUEST. A graphical representation 

of the building energy model developed in eQUEST is shown in Figure D-1. The 

geometry of the building was assumed because none of the new construction light 

industrial buildings on the Lackawanna site have been designed. 
80 

Figure D-1. Lackawanna site light industrial building eQUEST model representation

The NREL team assumed advanced energy efficient building design to develop the 

eQUEST model of the sample light industrial building. The general facility 

characteristics that were modeled are provided in Table D-1. 
81 

Table D-1. Lackawanna Site Light Industrial Building eQUEST Summary Information

Lackawanna site light industrial building – Lackawanna, New York

Project 

 

 

 

 

 

Weather Data TMY2 – Buffalo, New York

Building Type Light industrial building

Total Number of Buildings 

Modeled 1 

Building Areas 100,000 ft2

Above Grade Floors 1 

Below Grade Floors 0 

Building Footprint 

 

Building Orientation Plan north

Zoning Pattern Perimeter/core

Floor to Floor Height 20 ft

Floor to Ceiling Height 16 ft

Roof Pitch 0 deg 

Roof 

 

Construction Steel framed 

Roof Built-up roof

Insulation 4” Polyisocyanurate (R-28)

Walls 

 

Construction Metal frame 

Finish Metal

Insulation 2” Polystyrene (R-9) continuous

R-21 batts

Ground Floor 

Earth Contact 8” Concrete

Infiltration 

 Perimeter 0.10 (CFM/ft2

) 

Floors 

 

 

 

Interior Finish No finish

Construction 8” Concrete

Concrete Cap None

Exterior Doors 

 Door Type Double pane glass

Exterior Windows

Window Type Double pane glass

U-0.28, SHGC 0.6, Tvis 0.6

Building Operation

 

Schedule 8 hours/day, 5 days/week

Area Type Light manufacturing, office, 

corridors, restrooms
82 

Power Density 

 Lighting 0.8 to 1.5 W/ft2

Daylighting Controls

 Plug Loads 0.35 to 2.0 W/ft2

HVAC Systems 

 System Type Lake-source heat pump with 

back-up electric boiler

 System Cooling Source Heat pump – 14 EER

Economizer Temperature/enthalpy based

 Heating System Heat pump – COP 4.0

 Thermostat

Occupied / Unoccupied

Cooling - 73oF / 82oF 

Heating - 70oF / 64oF

Fan Schedules 

 Operation Schedule 10 hours/day, 5 days/week

Figure D-2 presents the eQUEST output for the Brisbane Baylands light industrial 

building energy model. As shown, lighting energy uses the most energy followed by 

equipment energy and ventilation fans. 

Figure D-2. Lackawanna site light industrial eQUEST results for annual energy use