# Utility-Scale Solar 2012 An Empirical Analysis of Project Cost, Performance, and Pricing Trends in the United States

Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

### Authors: Mark Bolinger and Samantha Weaver

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... i 1. Introducti on .............................................................................................................. 1

References

.................................................................................................................... 30 2. Installed Prices

.......................................................................................................... 3

3. Operations and Maintenance Costs ........................................................................... 8 Projected Operating Costs Are Similar for Different PV Configurations, Higher for CSP ................................... 8 Limited Sample of Empirical Operating Costs Seems to Conform to Projections .............................................. 9 4. Capacity Factors ....................................................................................................... 11

5. Power Purchase Agreement (“PPA”) Prices ............................................................. 19 6. Conclusions

.............................................................................................................. 28 PV Capacity Factors Vary Considerably by Project, but Time Trend Proves Elusive ......................................... 11 Performance Degradation Not Observable Within Limited Timeframe of PV Project Sample ............................ 13 Oversizing of PV Array Relative to Inverter Capacity Boosts Capacity Factor ................................................... . 14 PV Capacity Factors Influenced More by Location and Tracking, Less by Module Type ................................... 15 Parabolic Troughs Have a Long and Reliable Performance Record (Power Towers Less So) ............................ 16

Figure 1. Installed Price of Utility-Scale PV, 2007-2012 .................................................................................... 4 Figure 2. Installed Price of Utility-Scale PV by Configuration, 2007-2012 ....................................................

..... 5 Figure 3. Installed Price by Configuration and Project Size for 2012 PV Projects .............................................

. 6 Figure 4. Capacity-Weighted Average Installed Price for PV by Geographic Region ........................................... 7 Figure 5. Projected O&M and Total Operating Costs for Three Utility-Scale Solar Projects ................................ 9 Figure 6. Empirical O&M Costs by Project Type .............................................................................................. 10 Figure 7. Cumulative Capacity Factor by Commercial Operation Date (PV Only) ............................................. 12 Figure 8. Generation-Weighted Capacity Factor by Project Vintage (West Region) ........................................... 13 Figure 9. Capacity Factor Over Time For Projects With At Least 3 Years of History .......................................... 14 Figure 10. DC/AC Nameplate Ratio vs. Capacity Factor and Commercial Operation Date ................................. 15 Figure 11. Cumulative PV Capacity Factor by Region and Project Configuration ............................................. 16 Figure 12. Capacity Factor of CSP Projects (Solar Portion Only) Over Time .................................................... 17 Figure 13. Levelized PPA Prices by Technology and PPA Execution Date ......................................................... 21 Figure 14. Levelized PPA Prices by Operational Status and PPA Execution Date .............................................. 24 Figure 15. Generation-Weighted Average PPA Prices Over Time by Contract Vintage ...................................... 24 Figure 16. Levelized Generation-Weighted Average PPA Prices by Contract Vintage ....................................... 25

CSP and CPV Installed Prices .................................................................................................. ........................... 5 Time-of-Delivery Pricing: Delivering Electricity When It Is Most Valuable ....................................................... 20 Macho Springs: Solar Co-Located With— And Competitive With —Wind ....................................................... 23 Copper Mountain Projects Illustrate Strong Time Trend in PPA Prices .............................................................. 26 Price Comparison With Feed-In Tariff (“FIT”) Programs That Support Utility-Scale Projects ............................ 27 

### Table of Contents

List of Figures

List of Text Boxes Installed PV Prices Continued to Drop in 2012, but Less Than in Previous Years............................................. 3 Installed PV Prices Vary by Configuration, Project Size, and Region ................................................................ 5 LBNL-6408Ei 

## Executive Summary

With a critical mass of new large

- scale or “ utility

- scale ” solar projects (including PV, CPV, and CSP) now online and in some cases having operated for a number of years (generating data in addition to electricity), the utility

- scale sector of the solar market is ripe for analysis. This report, which is envisioned to be the first in an ongoing annual series, meets this need through in

depth, data

- driven analysis of not just installed project costs or prices

– i.e., the traditional realm of solar economics analy ses

– but also operating costs, capacity factors, and power purchase agreement (“ PPA ”) prices from a large sample of utility

- scale solar projects in the U.S

. (where utility

- scale is defined as any ground

- mounted project larger than 2 MW AC )

. As such, it pr ovides

a more

- integrated and holistic view of the market than is commonly found.

Given the nascent state of the utility

- scale solar market, data availability is still, in places, an issue in this inaugural edition. Moreover , given its current dominance i n the market, utility

- scale PV also dominates much of this report , though more balanced coverage is expected in future editions, given that a number of large CSP projects are currently under construction. Despite these challenges, t he report nevertheless paints a coherent picture that will be refined, enriched, and solidified over time as more data become available. Until then, some of the more

- notable findings from this year’s report include the following:

• Installed Prices: Installed PV project prices have fallen by nearly one

- third since the 2007

- 2009 period, from around $ 5. 6 /W AC to $ 3

. 9 /W AC on average for projects completed in 2012 (with some projects higher and others lower). Most of the decline has been concentrated among projects using c

- Si module s, as the gap between c

- Si and thin

- film steadily eroded over this period. In response to falling c

- Si module prices, there has been a marked increase in the proportion of projects using c

- Si (r ather than thin

- film) modules.

• O&M Costs: Although O&M cost data are extremely limited at present, what little empirical data exist suggest that actual costs have largely been in line with pro forma operating cost projections gleaned from several bond offering prospectuses. For PV, O&M costs appear to be in the ne ighborhood of $20

- $40/kW AC - year, or $10

- $20/MWh. CSP O&M costs (for parabolic trough) are higher, presumably due to the plumbing and thermal components, and come in around $60/kW AC - year.

• Capacity Factors: Like insolation levels, PV capacity factors vary by region. They also vary depending on whether a project is installed at a fixed

- tilt or uses a tracking device, with single

- axis trackers able to achieve capacity factors in excess of 30% in some of the better locations (thus confirming the industry rule of thumb that single

- axis tracking provides a 20% boost in output). In lieu of trackers, and enabled by the sharp decline in module prices, some projects have instead opted to oversize the PV array relative to the capacity rating of the inverters as a wa y to boost capacity factor. On the CSP side of the market, parabolic trough systems that have been operating in the U.S. for more than 20 years are still (in 2012) achieving capacity factors in excess of 20% (solar portion only , no storage ), which is comp arable to newer trough projects. Meanwhile, a pilot project for power tower technology has underperformed relative to expectations, but several much larger power tower projects under construction will soon test that technology on a truly commercial scale in the United States ( several commercial power tower projects have been operating in the Mediterranean region for several years).ii • PPA Prices: Driven primarily by lower installed PV project prices (which, in turn, have been driven primarily by declining mo dule prices), as well as expectations for further cost reductions in future years, levelized PPA prices have fallen dramatically over time, by $25/MWh per year on average. Some of the most

- recent PPAs (for PV projects) in the West have levelized PPA price s as low as $50

- 60/MWh (in 2012 dollars), which, in some cases, is competitive with wind power projects in th at same region. Solar appears to be particularly competitive when considering its time

- of

- delivery pricing advantage over wind ( roughly $25/MWh in California at current levels of penetration ).1 

## 1 . Introduction

Until the mid

- 2000s
, large

- scale solar projects primarily consisted of (and the corresponding term “ utility

- scale solar ” most often referred to ) concentrating solar power (“CSP”) projects

u sing parabolic trough technology to produce steam and generate electricity ; a number of such projects have been in operation in the United States since the 1 980s. More recently, however, utility

- scale solar increasingly refers to large , centralized photov oltaic (“PV”) projects that sell wholesale electricity directly to utilities , rather than displacing on

- site consumption ( as has been the more

- traditional application for PV)

. In the United States, utility

- scale has been the fastest

growing sector of the PV market, and now dominates : 2012 marked the first year that it captured the largest share of the overall PV market in terms of new MW installed, a distinction that is projected to continue through at least 2 016 (GTM / SEIA 2013). Moreover, althoug h a num ber of new CSP projects

– featuring not just parabolic troughs but also newer technologies including compact linear Fresnel reflectors and power towers

– have been built in recent years or are currently under construction, PV has largely surpassed CSP as t he preferred u tility

- scale solar technology, with nearly five times as much PV as CSP capacity either currently operating, under construction, or under development in utility

- scale configurations (SEIA 2013).

This growing utility

- scale sector of the solar market is ripe for analysis. Historically, empirical analyses of solar economics have focused primarily on up

- front installed costs or prices (see, for example, Barbose et al. 2013) , and principally with in the residential and commercial PV sectors. But as more utility

- scale projects have come online and begun to acquire an operating history, a wealth of other empirical data has begun to accumulate as well. U tility

- scale solar projects can be mined for data on not only installed prices , but also project performance ( i.e., capacity factor), operations and maintenance ( “ O&M ” ) costs, and power purchase agreement (“ PPA ”) prices ($/MWh)

– all da ta that tend to be unavailable publicly
, and also less meaningful, 1 within the residential and commercial sectors.
The operating history of utility

- scale PV in the U.S. has been brief, however. According to GTM / SEIA (2013)
, more than 2.8 GW DC of the 3 GW DC of utility

- scale PV online in the U.S. at the end of 2012 were built in 2010 (0.27 GW DC ), 2011 (0.76 GW DC ), and 2 012 (1.78 GW DC ). The back

- loaded nature of this progression, along with ongoing strong deployment in 2013 and

1 For example, even if performance data fo r residential systems were readily available, they might be difficult to interpret given that residential systems are often partly shaded or otherwise constrained by roof configurations that are at sub

- optimal tilt or azimuth. Utility

- scale projects, in c ontrast, are presumably less

- constrained by existing site conditions and better able to optimize these basic parameters, thereby generating performance data that are more normalized and easier to interpret. Similarly, even if known, the price at which thi rd

- party owners of residential PV systems sell electricity to site hosts is difficult to interpret, because residential PPAs are often priced only as low as they need to be in order to present an attractive value proposition relative to retail rates (this is known as “value

based pricing”). In contrast, utility

- scale solar projects must often compete (policy incentives notwithstanding) for PPAs against other generating technologies within competitive wholesale power markets, and therefore tend to offer PPA prices that reflect the minimum amount of revenue needed to recoup the project’s initial cost, cover ongoing operating expenses, and provide a normal rate of return (this is known as “cost

- plus” pricing). Whereas cost

- plus pricing data provide useful inf ormation about the amount of revenue that solar needs in order to be economically viable in the market, value

- based PPA price data are less useful, and often reflect the “price to beat” more so than the lowest possible price.2 beyond
, suggests that while there are currently useful data to analyze , data availability will grow rapidly in the coming years.

As such , t his r eport is the first edition in what is envisioned as an ongoing annual series that will
, each year
, compile and analyze the latest empirical data from the growing fleet of utility

- s cale solar projects in the U.S. In this inaugural edition, w e define “uti li ty

- scale” as any ground

mounted project with a nameplate capacity of 2 MW AC or larger. Within this subset of projects
, t he relative emphasis on different solar technologies within the re port largely reflect s the distribution of those tec hnologies in the b roader market

– i.e., most of the data and analysis naturally focuses on PV given its large market share , but concentrating photovoltaic (“ CPV ” ) and CSP projects are also included where data are available.
The report proceeds to analyze the data in a logi cal order, starting with up

- front installed prices in Section 2 , then moving on to operating costs and performance (i.e., capacity factor ) in Sections 3 and 4
, all of which influence the PPA prices that are reported and analyzed in Section 5

. D ata sources are diverse and vary depending on the type of data being presented, but i n general include the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), the Energy Information Administration (“EIA”), state and federal incentive programs, state and federal regulatory commissions, industry news releases, and trade press articles. Sample size also var ies by section, and at least in this first edition of the report, relatively few projects have sufficiently complete data to be included in all four data sets

. All data i nvolving currency are reported in constant or real U.S. dollars

– in this edition, 2012 dollars. 2
Finally, we note that t his report complements several other related studies and ongoing research activities, all funded as part of the DOE’s SunShot Initiati ve, which aims to reduce the cost of PV

- generated electricity by about 75% between 2010 and 2020. Most notable is LBNL’s long

standing Tracking the Sun series ( e.g., Barbose et al. 2013), which focuses on trends in PV installed prices with a primary empha sis on the residential and commercial sectors (but also including some of the utility

- scale data presented in this report). In addition, LBNL and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) jointly issue an annual briefing that summarizes historical, current, and projected PV installed prices, drawing upon data from Tracking the Sun (and perhaps in the future, this report) along with modeled installed price benchmarks and projections of near

- term system pricing developed through rese arch efforts underw ay at NREL (Feldman et al. 201 3 ).

2 Conversions between nominal and real dollars use the implicit GDP deflator. Historical conversions use the actual GDP deflator data series from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, while future conversions (e.g., for PPA prices) use the EIA’s projection of the GDP deflator in Annua l Energy Outlook 2013

.3 

## 2. Installed Price s

Berkeley Lab has gathere d installed price data for 202 utility

- scale (i.e., ground

- mounted and larger than 2 MW) solar projects totaling more than 2
, 00 0 MW DC (1, 735 MW AC ) and installed between 2007 a nd 2012. The sample consists largely of PV projects (194 projects totaling 1,544 MW AC ), but also includes five CSP projects totaling 149 MW AC , two CPV projects totaling 35 MW AC , and one 7 MW AC project that employs a mix of PV and CPV technology. In gener al,

o nly fully operational projec ts for which all individual phases were in operation at the end of 2012 are included in the sample. 3 The se definitional choices obviously impact the sample boundaries, and may lead to differences between the average insta l led price s presented in this section and those reported elsewhere (e.g., GTM/SEIA 2013). Furthermore , by definition, our sample is backward

- looking, and therefore may not reflect installed price levels in 2013 and beyond

. 4
This section analyzes installed price trends 5 among just the sample of PV projects described above (installed prices for the eight CSP, CPV , and mixed

- technology projects are discussed separately in the text box on page 5 )

. It begins with an overview of installed prices over time, and then examines utility

- scale system prices by technology, system size, and geographic region. Sources of installed price information include the Treasury Department’s Section 1603 Grant data base, data from applicable state rebate and incentive programs, FE RC Form 1 filings
, trade press articles , and data previously gathered by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL )

. All prices are reported in real 2012 dollars.

Installed PV Prices Continued to Drop in 2012, but Less Than i n Previous Years
Figur e 1 show s installed price trends for PV projects installed since 2007 in both DC and AC terms. Because solar project capacity is commonly reported in DC terms (particularly for PV in the residential and commercial sectors), the installed cost or price of solar is most often reported in $/W DC terms as well (see, for example, Barbose et al. 2013 and GTM/ SEIA 2013). For utility

scale solar applications, however, $/W AC is a more appropriate metric, for two reasons. First, all other conventional and renewable utility

- scale generation sources to which utility

- scale solar is compared are described in AC terms

– both in terms of their capacity ratings and their per

- unit costs. Second, as discussed later in Section 4, some utility

- scale PV projects intentionally oversize the DC PV array relative to the AC capacity of the inverters as a way to maximize

3 In contrast, l ater sections of this report do report data for individual phases of projects that are online, or (in the case of Section 5 on PPA prices) even for phases of projects or entire projects that are still in development a nd not yet operating. 4 Anecdotal information suggests that installed prices have continued to move lower in 2013. For example, on July 1, 2013, the Public Service Company of New Mexico filed for regulatory approval of 23 MW AC of thin

- film PV projects to be built in 2014 at an installed price of just $2.03/W AC , compared to $2.29/W AC for 20 MW AC of PV currently under construction in 2013 and $4.15/W AC for 22.5 MW AC built in 2011 (O’Connell 2013). 5 Installed “price” is reported (as opposed to installed “cos t”) because in many cases, the value reported reflects either the price at which a newly completed project was sold (e.g., through a sale/leaseback financing transaction)
, or alternatively the fair market value of a given project

– i.e., the price at which it would be sold through an arms

length transaction in a competitive market.4 average inverter load and efficiency and thereby boost the AC capacity factor. In these cases, the difference between a project’s DC and AC capacity ratings will be significantly larger than one would expect based on conversion losses alone, and since the project’s output will ultimately be constrained by the inverters’ AC rating, $/W AC (where the AC rating equals the aggregate inverter capacity rating) is the more a ppropriate cost or price metric to use. Here (in Figure 1 )

we show installed prices both ways ( in both $/W DC and $/W A C terms ) as a way to provide some continuity between this report and others (namely Barbose et al. 2013)

. The remainder of this section, however, as well as the rest of this document , report data exclusively in AC terms.
As shown in Figure 1 , installed prices among the sample of utility

- scale PV projects have declined by nearly one

- third on average from the 2007

- 2009 period through 2012, d ropping from $ 5. 6 /W AC to $ 3

. 9 /W AC over this period. Most of this decline occurred in 2010 and 2011, as capacity

- weighted average prices fells by only $0. 3 /W AC from 2011 to 2012.

Figure 1

. Installed Price of Utility

- Scale PV, 2007

- 2012
Though capacity

- weighted average prices have declined over time, there is nevertheless a considerable spread in individual project prices. Among the 113 projects in the sample completed in 2012, for example, installed prices range from $2. 8 /W AC to $ 8

. 0 /W AC , and preceding years show similar levels of variability. This price variation can be explained in part by differences in system configuration, project size, and geographic region, all of which are explored in greater detail below. 6

6 Other factors may also have an influence. For example, some of the higher

- priced projects built in 2012 and shown in Figure 1 are not only small, but are also interconnected o n the customer side of the meter, which presents a different value proposition (potentially subject to value

- based pricing) than that offered by a truly wholesale project. In addition, some of these higher

- priced projects are installed on top of capped la ndfills, which

– much like roof

mounted projects

– requires customized mounting and installation procedures that can drive up installed costs or prices. $0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9 $10

2007-2009 n=10 (81 MW-AC) 2010 n=17 (196 MW-AC) 2011 n=54 (429 MW-AC) 2012 n=113 (838 MW-AC)Installed Price (2012 $/W)

Installation Year Capacity-Weighted Averages Individual Projects - $/W-DC Individual Projects - $/W-AC5 Installed PV Prices Vary by Confi guration , Project Size, and Region The price variation noted in the previous section is partially attributable to project configuration

– i.e., whether PV projects use crystalline silico n (“c

- Si”) or thin

- film modules, and whether those modules are mounte d at a fixed

- tilt or on a tracking system. Figure 3 breaks out installed prices over time among the se project configurations.

Figure 2 . Installed Price of Utility

- Scale PV by Configuration , 2007

- 2012 Note: Capacity

- weighted average price not shown for system configurations with fewer than two data points. CSP and CPV Installed Prices

The installed price samp le includes five CSP projects ( three parabolic troug hs, one compact linear Fresnel reflector, and one power tower ), two CPV projects , and one project using a mix of CPV and PV . The installed price estimates for these eight projects are not included in any of the Section 2 figures because two of these proje cts have high enough installed prices that it does not make sense to include them on the same graph with PV projects, yet there are simply too few of these “non

- PV” projects at present to warrant separate graphs. Instead , the installed price s of these eig ht projects are discussed separately

w ithin this text box, a nd nowhere else in this report (though capacity factor and PPA price data for a subset of these projects are presented in Sections 4 and 5, respectively). All prices reported below are in 2012 $/ W AC . Among the CSP systems are a 3.2 MW AC compact linear Fresnel reflector project (Ausra’s Kimberlina project) and a 5 MW AC power tower project (eSolar’s Sierra SunTower), both online since 2009. Both are considered to be pilot projects, and based on Se ction 1603 grant data, have installed prices of roughly $15.3/W AC and $13.7/W AC , respectively. The remaining three CSP projects in the sample all feature parabolic trough techn ology, and have installed price estimates of $8.4/W AC (a 2 MW AC Sopogy MicroCSP project in Hawaii, built in 2009), $6.6/W AC (FPL’s 75 MW AC Martin Next Generation Solar Energy Center in Florida, built in 2010) and $4.5/W AC (the 64 MW AC Nevada Solar One project, built in 2007).
The two CPV projects are more recent. The 5.04 MW AC Hatc h Solar Center in New Mexico was buil t in 2011 at an installed price of $4.2/W AC , while the 30.24 MW AC Cogentrix Alamosa project in Colorado was built in 2012 at an installed price of $3.8/W AC . Both projects feature Amonix technology and dual

- axis trackin g. Finally, the 6.9 MW AC SunE Alamosa project in Colorado

– which features a mix of PV and CPV technology, as well as fixed

- tilt, single

- axis, and double

- axis tracking

– was built in 2007 with an installed price of $9.4/W AC .

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2007-09 2010 2011 2012 2007-09 2010 2011 2012 2007-09 2010 2011 2012 2007-09 2010 2011 2012
3 3 27 83 3 7 14 22 4 7 12 7 - - 1 1
7 20 146 386 39 54 155 241 35 123 108 186 - - 20 25 c-Si, Fixed-Tilt c-Si, Tracking Thin-Film, Fixed-Tilt Thin-Film, TrackingInstalled Price (2012 $/WAC)

Individual Project Capacity-Weighted Average

Year: Projects:
MW: c - Si, Fixed

- Tilt c - Si, Tracking Thin

- Film, Fixed

- Tilt Thin

- Film, Tracking6 Trends of particular note include:

• There has been a convergence in the average installed price of c

- Si and thin

- film projects. Though projects using c

- Si modules have historically been significant ly more expensive than projects using thin

- film modules, the price gap has eroded considerably over time. This convergence has been driven primarily by the price of c

- Si modules falling more quickly than the price of thin

- film modules, attributable to bot h a decline in the price of

s ilicon as well as a global excess of c

- Si module manufacturing capacity.

• Tracking systems remain only slightly more expensive than fixed

- tilt systems within the sample

– a difference of less than $0.2/W AC in 2011 and 2012 amon g c

- Si projects

. The small size of this gap may be due in part to the previously mentioned higher DC/AC capacity ratio among fixed

- tilt projects in general (this trend is explored further in Section 4), which boosts their installed prices in AC terms.

• As the price of c

- Si projects has converged with thin

- film, the number of c

- Si projects in the sample (particularly fixed

- tilt projects) has grown almost exponentially. Figure 2 shows that in 2011 and 2012

– coinciding with the timing of the convergence

– c

- Si projects overwhelmingly surpassed thin

- film as the most frequently installed project type in the sample. This trend is mirrored in the broader market as well.
Project size may also explain some of the variation in installed prices, as PV projects in the sample range from 2 MW AC t o nearly 100 MW AC . Figure 3 investigates whether scale economies potentially allow the larger projects in the sample to achieve lower costs, by focusing on just those PV projects in the sample that were installed in 2012 (rec all from F igure 2 that average installed prices did not vary widely across system configurations in 2012, thereby making it a convenient year for this purpose). As might be expected, utility

- scale PV projects do exhibit economies of scale, though the impa ct is most pronounced at the very low end of the size range. Out beyond 5

- 10 MW, scale economies appear to diminish considerably.

Figure 3

. Installed Price by Configuration and Project Size for 2012 PV Projects $0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100InstalledPrice(2012$/WAC)

System Size (MW AC ) c-Si, Fixed-Tilt c-Si, Tracking Thin-Film, Fixed-Tilt Thin-Film, Tracking Trendline (All Systems)

Figure only includes PV projects installed in 20127 Finally, installed prices might also va ry between geographic regions, due to variations in prevailing project sizes, land costs, labor costs, regulatory environments, landscape type, environmental conditions, number of active developers, and presence of industry infrastructure, among other fact ors. Figure 4 shows that solar projects in the West region (defined here to include Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, and Texas) have historically had lower prices than projects elsewhere, but that this gap has narrowed over time as prices in other regions have fallen more significantly

. The West’s historical price advantage can perhaps be attributed to at least two factors: (1) larger projects have typically been built in western states due to relatively easy acquisition of land , potentially offering cost savings due to economies of scale, and (2) the region has more experience with ut ility

- scale solar installations ( with a number of pr ojects in operation since 2007 or earlier), and thus likely more mature infrastructure and more competition within the solar market.

Figure 4

. Capacity

- Weighted Average Installed Price for PV by Geographic Region Note: Capacity

- weighted average prices not shown for years in which fewer than two installed price data points are available.

As othe r areas of the country have gained installation experience with utility

- scale PV, their prices have converged with those in the West. In 2012, for example, the capacity

- weighted average price in the West was $3.7/W AC , compared to $3.9/W AC in the Southeast (defined here to include Florida, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Tennessee) and $4.4/W AC in the Northeast (defined here to include Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Vermont). This $0.7/W AC range from lowest t o highest c ompares favorably with the more

- than

- $2.0/W AC range experienced as recently as 2010. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

West Southeast Northeast 2007-2009 2010 2011 2012Capacity-Weighted Average Installed Price (2012 $/WAC)n=7, MW=51n=9, MW=132n=25, MW=307n=24,MW=450n=4, MW=40n=6, MW =17n=57, MW=229n=4, MW=25n=23, MW=105n=32, MW=159n=2, MW=58 

## 3. Operations and Maintenance Costs

In addition to up

- front installed project costs or prices , utility

- scale solar projects also incur ongoing operations and maintenance ( “ O&M ” ) costs. This section reviews and analyzes the limited data on O&M costs that are in the public domain. It starts with a review of projected O&M costs from three large projects that have financed a portion of their capital costs throug h public bond offering s , thereby necessitating the disclosure of detailed project information. Then it turns to empirical historical data from a very limited sample of projects that are owned by investor

- owned utilities and, as such, are required to repor t operating expenses for those projects each year on FERC Form 1.

Projected Operating Costs Are Similar for Different PV Configurations , Higher for CSP
In the past two years, there have been at least three utility

- scale solar projects in the U.S. that h ave issued bonds to finance a portion of their construction. The 550 MW Topaz project is a fixed

- tilt, thin

- film PV system; the 579 MW Solar Star projects (formerly known as the Antelope Valley Solar Projects) are two adjacent PV projects that will utiliz e c

- Si with single

- axis tracking; and the 250 MW Genesis project is a parabolic trough CSP project without storage

. None of these three projects

– all of which are in California

– was fully online at the time of writing, though all were under construction and Topaz had begun to deliver some energy from early phases of the project.
Though not empirical data, projected operating expenses for these three projects are nevertheless instructive, not only because the projects are all very large (i.e., truly util ity

- scale), but also because they represent a diversity of technologies that happens to be highly representative of the majority of utility

- scale solar installations in the U.S. today, ranging from fixed

- tilt

- thin

- film PV to tracking c

- Si PV to parabolic t rough CSP without storage . That said, it is important to keep in mind that these three projects may not be entirely representative of the ir respective technology configurations . For example, given that these projected operating expenses are obtained from documentation intended to support a credit rating, they may be conservatively high in order to provide comfort to potential bond buyers. In fact, in its published research on each project, the

c redit rating agency Fitch noted the robust nature of operati ng cost projections, referring in particular to long

- term, fixed

- price O&M contracts with experienced operators covering both routine maintenance and major repair and replacement costs, as well as the allocation of additional funds for any O&M contingencie s that might arise (Fitch Ratings 2013, 2012, 2011 )

. For this reason, actual operating expenses (among these pr ojects, as well as others that fall into these three technology categories) might tend to be lower than shown in the figures below. On the other hand, these are all large projects, and smaller projects might experience higher per

- unit O&M costs.
Figure 5 shows projected operating expenses for all three projects over time, expressed both in $/kW AC - year (on the left) and $/MWh (on the right). Sinc e the vast majority of O&M expenses for solar projects are fixed (i.e., incurred regardless of how much electricity the system9 generates), 7 $/kW AC - year is seemingly a more appropriate metric than $/MWh, but the latter is included for ease of comparison to PPA prices ( presented later in S ection 5 ). For each project, Figure 5 shows not only total operating expenses (“OpEx”

– shown by the solid lines), but also just those expenses allocated to actual O&M (the dashed lines, which make up 70%

- 80% of total OpEx)

. 8

Source: FitchRatings 2013, 2012, 2011 Figure 5 . Projected O&M and Total Operating Costs for Three Utility

- Scale Solar Projects
Although one might expect tracking systems to have higher O&M costs than fixed

- tilt systems on a $/kW

- year basis, the two PV projects have very similar O&M and total operating cost projections, with O&M costs in the $2 0 to $ 3 0/kW AC - year range . Given Solar Star’s expected capacity factor advantage from tracking, however, its projected O&M costs are lower than Topaz’s on a $/ MWh basis

– increasing from $ 8

- $ 13 /MWh over time, compared to $1 6

- $ 21 /MWh for Topaz. Perhaps not surprisingly (given not only the solar tracking components, but also the rest of the infrastructure needed for a CSP project

– e.g., plumbing for the heat

tra nsfer fluid, heat exchangers, condensers, steam turbines, etc.), O&M and operating expenses for the Genesis project are projected to be considerably higher than for either of the PV projects
, and with a recurring spike every seven years relate d to schedule d maintenance and/or overhaul of the steam turbines (full inspection, tune

- up, re

- blading as necessary).

Limited Sample of Empirical Operating Costs Seems to Conform to Projections
Empirical data on the operating costs of utility

- scale solar projects ar e hard to come by. Not only have relatively few utility

- scale solar projects been operating for more than a year, but even fewer of those projects are owned by investor

- owned utilities, which are required by FERC to report on Form 1 the O&M costs of the p ower plants that they own. 9 And even fewer of those

7 Of the three projects in question, only Genesis

– the parabolic trough CSP project, which includes a gas turbine component

– broke out O&M expenses into fixed and variable costs, with fixed costs accounting for 96%

- 98% of total O&M costs each year. PV projects presumably have even fewer variable O&M costs. 8 In addition to O&M costs, total operating expe nses also include property taxes, insurance, land royalties, performance bonds, various administrative and other fees, and overhead ( FitchRatings 2013, 2011 ). 9 FERC Form 1 uses the “Uniform System of Accounts” to define what should be reported under “oper ating expenses”

– namely, those operational costs associated with supervision and engineering, maintenance, rents, and 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030203120322033203420352036203720382039Operating Costs (2012 $/kWAC-yr) Genesis

Solar Star Topaz Total OpEx

Just O&M

(A) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030203120322033203420352036203720382039Operating Costs (2012 $/MWh) Genesis

Topaz

Solar Star Total OpEx

Just O&M

(B)10 investor

- owned utilities that do own utility

- scale solar projects actually report operating cost data in FERC Form 1 in a manner that is useful. 10 Nevertheless, Figure 6 shows historical O&M costs for a very small sample of utility

- scale solar projects

– a total of nine projects totaling 137 MW

– in both $/kW

- year and $/MWh terms. 11 Only three of these projects (denoted by the three lines to represent project continuity over multiple years ) have historica l data for more than a single year; the other six only have data for 2012. Despite the extremely limited sample, reported costs are seemingly in line with the projected O&M costs in the early years of Figure 5 above

– i.e., in the neighborhood of $20

- $40/ kW AC - year or $10

- $20/MWh for PV, and around $60/kW AC - year for the lone CSP parabolic trough project

.

Figure 6

. Empirical O&M Costs by Project Type
As utility ownership of operating solar projects increases in the years ahead, t he sample of projects re porting O&M costs will grow, potentially allowing for more interesting analyses in future editions of this report.

training. As such, the FERC Form 1 data are more closely aligned with, and therefore more comparable to, the projected O&M costs (rather than the total operating expenses) reported in Figure 5. 10 For example, a number of investor

- owned utilities in California and the Southwest that own large solar projects either do not report operating costs for their solar projects on Form 1 at all, or e lse report them in an aggregated manner that does not readily lend itself to analysis. 11 O&M costs for the single CSP project (a 75 MW parabolic trough project) are only shown in $/kW

- year terms because this project provides steam to a co

- located combined cycle gas plant (i.e., the solar plant acts as a natural gas fuel saver). The amount of generation attributed to the solar plant is not tracked separately (or at least not reliably); instead, the solar plant serves to reduce the heat rate of the combined cycle gas plant. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

2010 2011 2012O&M Costs (2012 $/kWAC-year)

Generation-Weighted Average (PV only) Tracking c-Si (1 project, 25 MW) Fixed-Tilt c-Si (2 projects, 15 MW) Fixed-Tilt Thin-Film (5 projects, 22 MW) CSP (1 project, 75 MW) 5 projects overlap

(A) 0 5 10 15 20 25

2010 2011 2012O&M Costs (2012 $/MWh)

Generation-Weighted Average Tracking c-Si (1 project, 25 MW) Fixed-Tilt c-Si (2 projects, 15 MW) Fixed-Tilt Thin-Film (5 projects, 22 MW) (B)11 

## 4. Capacity Factor s

At the close of 2012, a number of utility

- scale solar projects had been operating for at least one full year (and in some cases for several or even many years), thereby enabling the calculation of capacity factors. 12 Sourcing net generation data from FERC Electronic Quarterly Reports, FERC Form 1, EIA Form 923, and state regulatory filings, this section presents net cap acity factor data for 73 PV projects totaling 7 43 MW AC (including one 5 MW AC dedicated CPV project and one 7 MW AC project that uses both PV and CPV technology ) and eleven CSP projects (ten parabolic trough and one power tower , none with storage ) totaling 4 23 MW AC (and for which only the solar generation is reported here

– no gas or oil augmentation is included). This samp le size will increase significantly in next year’s edition
, as the large amount of new utility

- scale solar capacity that came online in 2 012 will have its first full operating year in 2013. As sample size increases, so too will the information content of this section in future editions of this report.
Unless otherwise noted, the capacity factors presented here represent cumulative capacit y factors

– i.e ., calculated over as many years of data as are available for each individual project (going back to 2007) , rather than for just a single year. In all cases, capacity factors are calculated in AC terms (i.e., using the MW AC rather than MW DC nameplate rating), 13 which results in higher capacity factors than if reported in DC terms, but allows for direct comparison with the capacity factors of other generation sources (e.g., wind energy or conventional energy), which are also calculated in AC t erms. All capacity factors reported herein are also expressed in net , rather than gross , terms

– i.e., they represent the output of the project net of its own use.

PV Capacity Factor s Vary Considerably by Project, but Time Trend Proves Elusive
Figure 7 presents the cumulative capacity factors for all 73 PV projects, broken out by commercial operation date. As many as five years of net generation data go into the cumulative capacity factor calculations for the three projects that achieved commercial ope rations in late 2007, while the 45 projects in the sample that came online in 2011 have just a single year (2012) impacting their capacity factors.
As shown, there is a wide spread of capacity factors across the entire period. For example, projects built in 2010 feature capacity factors ranging from 1 3

. 8 % up to 30.2%, and other years have spreads that are almost as wide. A number of factors could be responsible for this wide range, including: whether th e project is mounted at a fixed

- tilt or uses tracki ng technology (this distinction is already noted in Figure 7 , where projects with trackers generally, though not always, yield a higher capacity factor ); 14 in what part of the country the project is located (as

12 Because solar generation is seasonal ( generating more in the su mmer and less in the winter), capacity factor calculations should only be performed in full

- year increments. 13 The formula is: Net Generation (MWh AC ) over Single

- or Multi

- Y ear Period / [Project Capacity (MW AC ) * Number of Hours in that Same Single

- or Multi

- Year Period] 14 The overwhelming majority of PV projects in the sample that use tracking systems use single

- axis trackers. Dual

axis trackers are limited to just one PV p roject in the sample, plus the two projects that use CPV technology (either exclusively or in combination with PV). For PV, where direct focus is not as important as it is for CPV or CSP,12 average insolation levels vary across the U.S

. ); what type of solar technology is used (e.g., c

- Si

versus thin

- film versus CPV ); the size of the PV array relative to the inverter capacity; inter

- year resource variability; and finally, when the project was built. 15

Figure 7 . Cumulative Capacity Facto r by Commercial Operation Date (PV Only)
Regarding the last variable , there does not seem to be much of a time trend evident in Figure 7 : the best

- fit line for fixed

- tilt systems does slope slightly upward over time, but with a very low R 2

, while the bes t

- fit line for tracking systems slopes slightly downward (and with an even lower R 2 ). Any time trend could be obscured by other influences , however

– for example, regional differences in the solar resource or use of different technology. Figure 8 attempt s to control for these influences by focusing only on those projects located in the West region (defined rather liberally here to include Colorado, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California
, and where 69 % of the capacity in the sample resides ), an d breaking them out by both technology type (c

- Si vs. thin

- film) and whether or not tracking is used. The capacity factors shown in each year represent the generation

- weighted average of the cumulative capacity factor from all projects that achieved comme rcial operations in that particular year.

dual

- axis tracking is a harder sell than single

- axis tracking, as t he roughly 10% boost in generation (compared to single

- axis) often does not outweigh the incremental costs, depending on the PPA price. 15 Other factors such as tilt and azimuth will also play a role, though since we are focusing only on ground

- mounted util ity

- scale projects, our operating assumption is that these fundamental parameters will be optimized to maximize energy production. R2 = 0.0313 R2 = 0.0193

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-10 Jan-11Net Capacity Factor

Commercial Operation Date Fixed-Tilt Tracking13 Figure 8 . Generation

- Weighted Capacity Factor by Project Vintage (West Region)
Even after controlling for these other influences, Figure 8 does not suggest much of a time trend

– i.e., with the possible excep tion of fixed

- tilt thin

- film systems (though that trend is skewed by a single 2007 project), there is no indication that projects built more recently have higher capacity factors. This lack of a time trend is somewhat notable given that: (A) PV project p erformance degrades slightly over time, which

– all else equal

– would lead one to expect that older projects would have slightly lower cumulative capacity factors than newer projects, and (B) falling module prices have led some projects to oversize the DC solar array relative to the AC inverter capacity rating as a way to boost capacity factor. 16 We explore each of these variables below.

Performance Degradation Not Observable Within Limited Timeframe of PV Project Sample
Although performance degradation is commonly accounted for in power purchase agreements, 17 it does not appear to be a strong influence in the sub

- sample of eleven projects (totaling 96 MW AC ) for which three or more years of data are available ( each of these eleven projects is shown as an individual line in Figure 9 ). 18 T o be fair, the impact of degradation would be

16 One might also expect that newer projects would have higher capacity factors because the efficiency of PV modules (both c

- S i and thin

- film) has increased over time. As module efficiency increases, however, developers simply either use fewer of them to reach a fixed amount of capacity (thereby saving on balance

- of

- system and land costs as well) or, alternatively, use the same number of them to boost the amount of capacity installed on a fixed amount of land (which directly reduces at least $/W DC costs, if not also $/W AC costs). In other words, for PV more so than for other technologies like wind power, efficiency improvements over time show up more as cost savings rather than as higher capacity factors. 17 For example, among a sample of power purchase agreements for fifteen projects (not all of which are yet online) totaling 2
, 138 MW AC , the projected decline in contracted genera tion ranges from 0.5%/year to 0.9%/year, with a capacity

- weighted average of 0.6 5 %/year (the mean and median are also 0.65%/year)

. These contractual degradation rates are likely somewhat conservative or over

- stated, since they are typically tied to perfor mance thresholds (which the developer presumably does not want to breach) within the PPA. 18 Figure 9 is not on a cumulative basis. Instead, it shows individual project capacity factors in each individual calendar year, as a means of checking for signs of performance degradation. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Net Capacity Factor (Gen-Wgtd Avg)

Project Vintage (Commercial Operation Date) Fixed-Tilt c-Si

Fixed-Tilt Thin-Film

Tracking c-Si14 difficult to perceive after just three to five years

– e.g., all else equal, a degradation rate of 0.65%/year would reduce a 30% capacity factor in year one to 29. 6 % in year thr ee and 29.2% in year five , leaving the cumulative three

- year capacity factor at 29.8% (or 29.6% over five years)

. In other words, over this short time frame, degradation of capacity factors would be barely perceptible, particularly with other variables (e .g., inter

- year variability in the solar resource) influencing the trend as well.

Figure 9 . Capacity Factor Over Time For Projects With At Least 3 Years of History

Oversizing of PV Array Relative to Inverter Capacity Boosts Capacity Factor
One design element that varies considerably among utility

- scale PV projects is the ratio of the project’s DC capacity rating

– determined by the size of PV array

– to the aggregate AC capacity of the inverters. Adding module capacity beyond what is considered optim al (in terms of maximizing solar generation) given the inverters’ capacity rating will increase the amount of DC power flowing to the inverters at any given time (except during peak production times, when the inverters will be maxed out and excess power wi ll be spilled), thereby boosting the average inverter load and efficiency and leading to a higher capacity factor. 19 With the cost of modules having dropped precipitously in recent years, this strategy is now more cost

- effective than it once was, and can b e a viable alternative to a tracking system as a means of maximizing production during on

- peak periods and boosting capacity factor. This strategy may also contribute to the small difference in installed prices between fixed

- tilt and tracking systems dete cted earlier in Figure 2.
Figure 1 0 (A) plots the DC/AC nameplate capacity ratio against cumulative net capacity factor for the 73 PV projects in the sample. The relationship appears to be fairly strong for fixed

- tilt systems (high R 2 best

- fit line)

– the higher the DC/AC ratio, the higher the capacity factor

– but

19 This is analogous to the boost in capacity factor achieved by a wind turbine when the size of the rotor increases relative to the turbine’s nameplate capacity rating. This decline in “specific power” (W/m 2 of rotor swept area)

c auses the generator to operate closer to (or at) its peak rating more often, thereby increasing capacity factor. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Net Capacity Factor

Calendar Year15 not for tracking systems ( much flatter best

- fit line with low R 2 )
, 20 which have not pushed the DC/AC envelope in the way that fixed

- tilt systems have. This is not surprising: tracking systems a re already operating at or near peak capacity for a significant proportion of each day (by virtue of the fact that they follow the sun), and therefore have less to gain from oversizing

– particularly given the incremental expense of oversizing the tracking system itself (not just the modules).

Figure 1 0

. DC/AC Nameplate Ratio v s . Capacity Factor and Commercial Operation Date
If the oversizing of fixed

- tilt systems has been a recent development (e.g., as module costs have decreased), then this might be another reason to expect a time trend in capacity factor. Figure 1 0 (B) suggests that there is , in fact, a positive relationship between commercial operation date and the DC/AC ratio among fixed

- tilt (but not tracking) systems , but it is very weak ( i.e., l ow R 2 )

. Hence, based on Figures 7

- 1 0 , we conclude that while there may be a bit of a positive time trend influencing the capacity factors of fixed

- tilt (but not tracking) systems, that relationship is weak. To the extent that it does exist, it is likely driven by a general increase in the DC/AC ratio among newer projects.

PV Capacity Factors Influenced More by Location and Tracking, Less by Module Type

Without a strong time trend to complicate the analysis, we can analyze the remaining influences

on ca pacity factor with just a single graph. Figure 1 1 parses the sample (excluding the one CPV and one mixed

- technology project, neither of which fits neatly into any of these buckets 21 ) in three different ways: by region, by fixed

- tilt versus tracking, and b y c

- Si versus thin

- film.

20 Most of the tracking projects with capacity factors around 20% or less are in northern climates

– Vermont, Illinois, Delaware, New Jersey, an d Ohio

– which presumably explains their lower capacity factors relative to other tracking systems in the sample. 21 The 5.04 MW AC Hatch CPV project in New Mexico had a 20.9% capacity factor in 2012, while the mixed

technology 7 MW AC SunE Alamosa project in Colorado has had a 29.1% cumulative capacity factor (with very little annual variation) over the 5

- year period from 2008

- 2012. Finally, though technically not included in this year’s capacity factor sample because it came online in early 2012, the 30.24 MW AC Cogentrix Alamosa CPV project in Colorado had a 24.8% capacity factor in the twelve

- month period from July 2012 through June 2013. R2 = 0.6036 R2 = 0.0044

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

100% 110% 120% 130% 140% 150%Net Capacity Factor

DC / AC Nameplate Ratio Fixed-Tilt Tracking

(A) R2 = 0.1186 R2 = 0.0395

100% 105% 110% 115% 120% 125% 130% 135% 140% 145%

Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-10 Jan-11DC / AC Nameplate Ratio

Commercial Operation Date Fixed-Tilt Tracking

(B)16 Figure 1 1

. Cumulative PV Capacity Factor by Region and Project Configuration
Although sample size can become an issue when sub

- dividing the sample this narrowly, the results are nevertheless largely as expected. Projects locat ed in the Northeast region (broadly defined here to include Delaware, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, and Vermont) feature the lowest capacity factors, followed by the Southeast (which includes just Florida and North Caro lina at this time) , while the W est (Texas, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and California) features the highest capacity factors . Within each region, projects using trackers (overwhelmingly single

- axis) feature higher capacity factors than fixed

- ti lt systems. 22 And finally, thin film technology appears to have a slight edge over c

Si in the W est region, where ambient temperatures are highest , while c

- Si wins out in the other two regions. 23

Parabolic Troughs Have a Long and Reliable Performance Reco rd (Power Towers Less So)

There are thirteen CSP projects in the U.S. that are larger than 2 MW and that have been operating for one or more year s

. Two of these projects, however, do not have reliable net

22 A rule of thumb in the industry is that single

- axis trackers will boost energy yield (i.e., capacity factor) by 20%,

a nd this is roughly borne out by the sample of projects in the West. The c

- Si trackers in the West sample have a 19% higher generation

- weighted average capacity factor than the fixed

- tilt c

- Si systems, while the lone thin

- film tracker in the sample has a 2 2% higher capacity factor than the fixed

- tilt thin

- film systems. The use of trackers is not as common among thin

- film systems because the lower efficiency of thin

- film relative to c

- Si requires more land area per nameplate MW

– an expense that is exacerba ted by the use of trackers, which require even more land area to avoid shading as the modules move throughout the day. In addition, thin

- film modules have historically been cheaper than c

- Si modules, perhaps making array over

- sizing a more

- viable alternat ive to tracking as a means to boost capacity factor. 23 The vast majority of thin film systems in the sample (82% of all thin

- film capacity in the sample) use CdTe panels from First Solar. On its web site ( http://www.firstsolar.com/en/Innovation/Advanced

- T hin

- Film

- Modules ), First Solar claims that its CdTe technology provides greater energy yield (per nameplate W) than c

- Si at module temperatures above 25° C (77° F)

– i.e., conditions routinely encountered by PV systems located in the Southwest region. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

c-Si Film c-Si Film c-Si Film c-Si Film c-Si Film c-Si Film Fixed-Tilt Tracking Fixed-Tilt Tracking Fixed-Tilt Tracking Northeast Southeast WestNet Capacity Factor Generation-Weighted Average Individual Project15 projects115 MW3 projects15 MW7 projects40 MW1 project10 MW1 project13 MW3 projects36 MW5 projects57 MW19 projects238 MW16 projects187 MW1 project20 MW17 generation data, because one of them (the Kimberl ina compact linear Fresnel lens project in California) primarily produces steam for industrial uses, while the other (the Martin parabolic trough project in Florida) feeds steam to a co

- located combined cycle gas plant, with the resulting generation attrib uted to the gas plant. That leaves eleven CSP plants in the sample: the nine parabolic trough SEGS plants (totaling 354 MW) that have been operating in California for more than twenty years, the 64 MW Nevada Solar One parabolic trough project that has be en operating in Nevada since mi d

- 2007, and the 5 MW Sierra Sun Tower project that has been online in California since mid

- 2009.
Figure 1 2 shows the net annual capacity factor s from just the solar portion of these projects (i.e. no augmentation with natural gas or fuel oil is included in Figure 1 2 ), going back to 2001. The eleven projects fall roughly into three groupings: SEGS III

- IX, along with Nevada Solar One (represented by the dashed black line) , have the highest capacity factors ; SEGS I and II are g rouped in the middle ; and the Sierra Sun Tower has by far the lowest capacity factor

.

Figure 1 2 . Capacity Factor of CSP Projects (Solar Portion Only) Over Time
Figure 1 2 provides several insights :

• Capacity factors among the uppermost grouping, which in cludes SEGS III

- IX and Nevada Solar One, have converged in the past three years, in part as a result of refurbishments and upgrades. For example, SEGS VIII and IX, which prior to 2010 regularly had the lowest capacity factors within this grouping, upgrade d (with the help of the Section 1603 grant program) their heat collection elements in early

- 2010 to make the projects more efficient. The resulting improvement in their capacity factors is evident. Nevada Solar One also took advantage of the Section 1603 grant program in late

- 2009 to expand the size of its solar field by 5%; the resulting step

- up in capacity factor from 2010

- 2012 (relative to 2008

- 2009) is also evident in Figure 1 2

.

• O ne likely reason for the consistently lower capacity factors of the SEGS I and II projects is that they feature smaller solar fields (relative to nameplate capacity) than the other seven SEGS projects. Just as oversizing a PV array relative to inverter capacity can boost 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Net Capacity Factor (solar portion only) SEGS III

- IX and Nevada Solar One (dashed)

SEGS I & II

Sierra SunTower18 capacity factor, so too can increasing the number of pa rabolic trough collectors relative to the nameplate rating of the steam turbine. Another potential factor is that SEGS I and II are owned and operated separately from SEGS III

- IX, and have reportedly been used as somewhat of a test

- bed for new collector t echnologies in recent years.

• Though considered a pilot project, the Sierra Su n Tower has, nevertheless, not lived up to performance expectations, and appears to be operating only a portion of the time ( Gunther 2013)

. 24

• Finally, Figure 1 2 reflects only the ne t capacity factor attributable to the sun. Most of these projects also use gas

- fired turbines to supplement their output (e.g., during shoulder months, into the evening, or during cloudy weather). In the case of Nevada Solar One, for example, gas

- fired g eneration has boosted historical capacity factors by twenty to forty basis points depending on the year ( e.g., from 22.9% solar

- only to 23.2% gas

included in 2012), with gas usage most often peak ing in the spring and fall (shoulder months).

With a handful of major CSP projects

– including two large power tower facilities (Ivanpah and Crescent Dunes) and three large parabolic trough project s (Genesis, Mojave, Solana)

– currently under construction in the U.S., the availability of CSP performance data will i mprove in future years

.

24 In response to a query regarding this project’s low capacity factor, eSolar (the project sponsor) described this project as a “multipurpose facility” that “operates and produces power on a part time basis” and is “also used for product development, research, and technology demonstration
, ” and later clarified that “ Sierra SunTower is an operating full

- scale facility where power generation is blended with product development on heliostats, control software and O&M areas” ( Huibregtse
, 2013). More recently, Gree ntech Media (Wesoff 2013) reported that “eSolar is now pursuing enhanced oil recovery applications, rather than power generation in the U.S.”19 

## 5. Power Purchase Agreement (“ PPA ”) Price s

The cost of installing, operating, and maintaining a utility

- scale solar project, along with its capacity factor

– i.e., all of the factors that have been explored so far in this repor t

– are key determinants o f the price at which solar power can be profitably sold through a long

- term power purchase agreement (“PPA”). Relying on data compiled from FERC Electronic Quarterly Reports, FERC Form 1, EIA Form 923, and a variety of regulatory filings, this section presents trends in PPA prices among a sample of utility

- scale solar projects in the U.S. The sample includes a total of 5 7 contracts totaling 4, 2 89 MW AC and broken out as follows: 51 PV PPAs totaling 3, 822 MW AC , two CPV PPAs totali ng 35 MW AC , one 7 MW AC PPA that is a mix of PV and CPV, and 3 CSP PPAs (two parabolic trough, one power tower) totaling 424 MW AC . The universe from which this sample is drawn includes only those utility

- scale projects that sell electricity (as well as t he associated capacity and renewable energy credits or “RECs ” ) in the wholesale power market through a long

- term, bundled PPA. Utility

- owned projects, as well as projects that sell electricity directly to end

- users (i.e., on a retail basis, and often in c onjunction with net metering), are therefore not included in the sample. We also exclude those projects that unbundle and sell RECs separately from the underlying electricity, because in those instances the PPA price alone is not indicative of the project ’s total revenue requirements (at least on a post

incentive basis). PPAs resulting from feed

- in tariff (“FIT”) programs are excluded for similar

reasons

– i.e., the information content of the pre

- established FIT price is low

– al though the prices paid by FIT programs are discussed in a text box on page 27

. In short, the goal of this section is to learn how much post

- incentive revenue a utility

- scale solar project requires to be viable, and as such, the PPA sample comes entirely from utility

- scale projects that sell bundled energy, capacity, and RECs to utilities (both investor

- owned and publicly

- owned utilities) through long

- term PPAs resulting from competitive solicitations or bilateral negotiations. 25

25 Because all of the PPAs in the sample include RECs (i.e., transfer them to the power purchaser), we need not

wor ry too much about REC price trends in the unbundled REC market. It is, however, worth noting that some states (e.g., Colorado) have implemented REC “multipliers” for solar projects (whereby each solar REC is counted as more than one REC for RPS compliance purposes), while others have implemented solar “set

- asides” or “carve

outs” (requiring a specific portion of the RPS to be met by solar) as a way to specifically encourage solar power development. In these instances, it is possible that utilities might b e willing to pay a bit more for solar through a bundled PPA than they otherwise would be, either because they need to in order to comply with a solar set

- aside, or because they know that each bundled solar REC has added value (in the case of a multiplier). So even though REC prices do not directly impact the analysis in this report, policy mechanisms tied to RECs might still influence bundled PPA prices in some cases

– presumably to the upside.20 For each of the contracts in the sample, 26 we have c ollected the contractually locked

- in PPA price data over the full term of the PPA, 27 and have accounted for any escalation rates and/or time

- of

- delivery (“TOD”) pricing factors employed (see the text box on this page). 28 The PPA prices presented in this sec tion, therefore, reflect the full revenue available to (and presumably in many cases, the minimum amount of revenue required by 29 ) these projects over the life of the contract

– at least on a post

- incentive basis. In other words, these PPA prices do reflec t the

26 In general, each PPA corresponds to a different project, tho ugh in some cases a single project sells power to more than one utility under separate PPAs, in which case there may be two or more PPAs tied to a single project. 27 The minimum PPA term in the sample is 15 years, the maximum is 30 years, the average (both simple and capacity

- weighted) is 23.4 years, and the median is 25 years. 28 In cases where PPA price escalation rates are tied to inflation, the EIA’s projection of the U.S. GDP deflator from Annual Energy Outlook 2013 is used to determine expected escalati on rates . For contracts that use time

- of

- delivery pricing and have at least one year of operating history, each project’s average historical generation profile is assumed to be replicated into the future. For those projects with less than a full year of operating history, the generation profiles of similar (and ideally nearby) projects are used as a proxy until sufficient operating experience is available. 29 In a competitive “cost

- plus” pricing environment

– where the PPA price is just sufficient to recou p initial capital costs, cover ongoing operating costs, and provide a normal rate of return

– PPA prices will represent the minimum amount of revenue required by a project. In contrast, “value

- based” pricing occurs when the project developer or owner is a ble to negotiate a higher

- than

- necessary PPA price that nevertheless still provides value to the buyer. Time

- of

- Delivery Pricing: Delivering Electricity When It Is Most Valuable

5 5 % of the nearly 4, 3 0 0 MW in the solar PPA price sample feature prices that vary by time of delivery (both diurnally and seasonally

– there are no solar PPAs in the sample that vary prices diurnally but not seasonally or vice versa). This stands in stark contrast to Berkeley Lab ’s much larger sample of wind project PPAs (>25 GW), where only 15% (of MW) vary prices diurnally, only 10% vary prices seasonally, and only 8% vary prices both diurnally and seasona lly. This disparity is partly attributable to geography

– a large number of solar projects in the sample are located in the West and sell power within or into California, where time

- of

- delivery (“TOD”) pricing is relatively common, while the wind PPA samp le is more

- evenly distributed throughout the country. It also potentially reflects, however, the fact that solar tends to benefit from TOD pricing, while wind is often indifferent to or even hurt by it.
For example, based on actual diurnal and seasonal p roduction profiles of both a PV and a wind project that have PPAs with PG&E, TOD pricing (using PG&E’s 2011 TOD factors) benefits PV over wind by $23/MWh on a levelized basis (in real 2012 dollars). Similarly, for a different pair of projects that have PP As with Southern California Edison (which uses its own TOD factors, different from PG&E’s), PV has a $26/MWh TOD advantage over wind. In other words, if these PV and wind PPAs all had the same “base price” (i.e., pre

- TOD adjustment), the PV projects would earn $23

- $26/MWh more revenue than the wind projects over the full terms of the contracts once the TOD factors had been applied to that base price. Or, stated another way, the PV projects could offer a base price that is at least $20/MWh lower than the w ind projects’ base price and still earn roughly the same amount of post

- TOD revenue (levelized $/MWh) as those wind projects over the full contract terms.
Not surprisingly, most (>90%) of the relative benefit comes from diurnal variation in the TOD factor s. PV generates the bulk of its daily output mid

- day when prices are highest, and does not produce at night, thereby avoiding the lowest

- priced period of each day. Wind production profiles vary from site to site and by region, but tend to be more evenly distributed throughout the day

– i.e., not as concentrated as PV in the high

- priced on

- peak periods, and instead generating some portion of daily output during the low

- priced off

- peak periods. Seasonal differences in production between wind and PV tend no t to be as large as the diurnal difference; nor are the seasonal TOD adjustments as stark as the diurnal.
Of course, PV ’s TOD advantage over wind is heavily dependent on the TOD factors currently in use, and so should not be considered generalizable or st atic. For example , Mills and Wiser (2012) use a capacity expansion model to demonstrate that at progressively higher solar penetrations in California, solar’s TOD advantage will decrease as the net peak load (i.e., peak l oad net of solar generation) shift s progressively later into the afternoon and eventually evening, when solar production starts to fade (absent storage) . Presumably in such a potential future scenario, TOD factors would no longer favor mid

- day generation as much as they currently do, whic h would, in turn, likely erode solar’s TOD advantage over wind.21 receipt of federal (e.g., the 30% ITC or cash grant, accelerated tax depreciation) 30 and state incentives (e.g., grants, production incentives, various tax credits), and would be higher if not for these incentives. 31 As such, the levelized PPA price s presented in this section should not be equated with a project’s levelized cost of energy (“LCOE”).
Figure 1 3 shows trends in the levelized PPA prices from the entire sample (not all of which is yet operational) over time. Each bubble in Figure 1 3 repr esents a single PPA, with the area of the bubble corresponding to the size of the contract in MW and the placement of the bubble reflecting both the levelized PPA price (along the vertical y

- axis) and the date on the which the PPA was executed (along the h orizontal x

- axis). 32 Different solar technologies (e.g., PV versus CPV versus CSP) are denoted by different color s and patterns.

Figure 1 3 . Levelized PPA Prices by Technology and PPA Execution Date

30 In addition to the other federal incentives listed, seven projects within the sample also received DOE loan guarantees through the Section 1705 progra m. In all seven cases, however, the projects had already executed PPAs by the date on which the loan guarantee was awarded, suggesting that the guarantee had no impact on the PPA price. 31 For example, taking a simplistic view (i.e., not considering financ ing effects), the average PPA price c ould be as much as 50% higher if there were no federal ITC (i.e., 30%/(1

- federal tax rate))

. Though there is too much variety in state

- level incentives to try and systematically quantify their impact here, one example is New Mexico’s refundable Production Tax Credit, which pays varying amounts per MWh (averaging $27/MWh) of solar electricity produced over a project’s first ten years. One PPA for a utility

- scale PV project in New Mexico allows for two different PPA pric es

– one that i s $43.50/MWh higher than the other, and that goes into effect only if the project does not qualify for t he New Mexico PTC. Based on New Mexico’s top corporate tax rate of 7.6%, a $43.50/MWh price increase due to loss of New Mexico ’s PTC see ms excessive (a more appropriate 20

- year adjustment would seemingly have been roughly half that amount), but nevertheless, this is one tangible example of how state (and federal) incentives can reduce PPA prices. 32 Because PPA prices reflect market conditi ons at the time a PPA is executed

– which could be a year or more in advance of when the project achieves commercial operations

– the PPA execution date is more relevant than the commercial operation date when analyzing PPA prices. In contrast, installed prices (and, to a lesser extent, capacity factors) are more closely tied to when a project achieves commercial operations; hence, commercial operation date is used in earlier sections. $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300Sep-02Sep-03Sep-04Sep-05Sep-06Sep-07Sep-08Sep-09Sep-10Sep-11Sep-12Sep-13

PPA Execution Date PV (3,822 MW, 51 contracts) CPV (35 MW, 2 contracts) Mix (7 MW, 1 contract) CSP (424 MW, 3 contracts)Levelized PPA Price (2012 $/MWh)
550 MW

210 MW 32 MW (New York)22 Figure 1 3 provides a number of insights:

• The utility

- scale solar market is relatively young , particularly for PV. Utility

- scale CSP projects have been around since the 1980’s, and one PPA in the sample for a new CSP project was executed back in late 2002, but with a few limited exceptions (e.g., the PVUSA f acility in California from the 1980s)
, utility

- scale PV has only been a reality in the U.S. since 2006/2007.

• Not surprising ly, the highest

- priced contract in the sample come s from the Northeast ( Long Island ), which do es not enjoy the abundant sunshine of t he West (where 96 % of the PPAs in the sample, and 9 9 % of the capacity r epresented by those PPAs
, are l ocated)

.

• PPA pricing has, in general, declined over time, to the point where recent PPAs have been priced as aggressively as $50

- $60/MWh levelized (in 201 2 dollars) . In the West/Southwest (where these low

- priced projects ar e located), pricing this low is, in some cases, competitive with wind power (Wiser and Bolinger 2013), as illustrated in the Macho Springs text box on the next page . This is particularl y the case when considering solar’s on

- peak generation profile, which

– as discussed in the time

- of

- delivery text box

on page 20

– can give solar a TOD pricing advantage relative to wind. 33

• Although at first glance there does not seem to be a significant di fference in the PPA prices required by different solar technologies, it is notable that virtually all of the recent PPAs in the sample employ PV technology. Back in 2002 when the Nevada Solar One CSP PPA was executed, PV was too expensive to compete at th e wholesale level, but by 2009 when the other two CSP PPAs in the sample were executed, PV had caught up in terms of pricing. Since then, virtually all new contracts have employed PV technology, while a number of previous ly

- executed CSP contracts have eit her been canceled or converted to PV technology. CPV was seemingly competitive back in 2010 when the two contracts in the sample were executed, but lack of any new contracts since then (at least within the sample) prevents a more

- recent comparison

– and i s perhaps telling in its own right.

• Smaller projects (e.g., in the 20

- 50 MW range) feature PPA prices that are just as competitive as larger projects (>200 MW) . Though scale economies are present in PV projects (at least at the low end of the size range, per Figure 3 earlier) , very large projects often face greater development challenges than smaller projects, including greater environmental sensitivities and more

- stringent permitting requirements, as well as more interconnection and transmission hurdles. Once a project grows beyond a certain size, the costs of overcoming these incremental challenges may outweigh any benefits from scale economies in terms of the impact on the PPA price.

33 The levelized PPA prices shown in Figure 13 (and throughout this sect ion) already incorporate all applicable TOD factors. Not all PPAs, however, use explicit TOD factors, though in those instances where they are not used, solar’s

on

- peak generation profile still presumably provides higher implicit value (compared to wind) to the utility purchaser.23 Not all of the projects behind the contracts shown in Figure 1 3 are fully (or even partially) operational, though all of them are still in play (i.e., the sample does not include PPAs that have been terminated). Figure 1 4 shows the same data as Figure 1 3 , but broken out according to whether or not a project has begun to deliver power. 34 Understandably, most of the more

recently signed PPAs in the sample pertain to projects that are still in development or under construction, and have not yet begun to deliver electricity under the terms of the PPA. Given that many of thes e same PPAs are also the lowest

- priced contracts in the sample, it remains to be seen whether some of these projects can be profitably built and operated under the aggressive PPA price terms shown here. 35

34 If a project had begun to deliver power as of June 2013

– even if not yet fully operational or built out to its contractual size

– it is characterized as “operating” in Figure 14. Only those projects that were still in developme nt or were under construction but not yet delivering power are characterized as “planned.” 35 There is a history of solar project and PPA cancellations in Californi a, though in many cases these have involved projects using less

- mature technologies (e.g., st irling dish engines, compact linear Fresnel reflectors, and power towers). For PV projects, p rice revisions are perhaps a more likely risk ; for example, one of the lowest

- priced PPAs in the sample would have had an even lower price ( by $5/MWh) if not for a n upward price revision stemming from import duties placed on Chinese

- made modules (Palo Alto 2012). Macho Springs: Solar Co

- Located With

– A nd C ompetitive W ith

– Wind
In November 2012, El Paso Electric filed for approval of 20

- year PPA with the 50 MW AC Macho Springs PV project, developed by Element Power (and later sold to First Solar). This project has at least two notable features: (1) it is co

- located with the existing 50.4 MW Macho Springs wind project (also developed by Element Power and selling electricity to El Paso Electric), whi ch began commercial operations in late 2011, and (2) it has the lowest PPA price of any solar project in the sample, at roughly $50/MWh levelized (real 2012 dollars). In fact, the solar project is priced lower than the co

- located wind project (though the wind PPA was signed more than two years earlier, in 2010) , which sells electricity at a levelized price of just below $80/MWh (real 2012 dollars).
The solar project benefits from some of the infrastructure that had already been built for the wind projec t, such as the substation, which no doubt helps to support its lower price. Another factor is New Mexico’s 10

- year refundable Production Tax Credit, which provides an average of $27/MWh to solar (though actual amounts vary by year over the 10

- year period) , compared to just $10/MWh (flat) for wind. Otherwise, the two projects are essentially the same size, were developed by the same developer, have the same PPA term (20 years) and off

- taker, and receive essentially the same federal benefits (accelerated de preciation and either the 30% ITC or the 30% Section 1603 cash grant

– the wind project chose the grant).
To date, the wind project has generated a 29% net capacity factor, while the solar project expects to reach almost 26%. But these annual averages ma sk likely seasonal synergies: so far, the wind project’s lowest monthly output has been in July, August, and September

– three summer months in which the solar project will presumably generate its highest output. This natural complementarity allows the t wo projects to more fully utilize their interconnection agreement and transmission rights. Macho Springs is the latest in a growing number of solar projects that are co

- located with either wind (Catalina, Grand Ridge, Wild Horse, Kingman, Atlantic County Utilities Authority) or geothermal (Stillwater) projects

– though so far none of these hybrid projects have been truly envisioned or developed as integrated projects (rather, solar has been added later in each ca se, and is sold under a separate PPA). As s uch, there are presumably still as

- yet

- untapped synergies to be realized in the future for hybrid projects that are envisioned, planned and developed as such right from the start.24 Figure 1 4 . Levelized PPA Prices by Operational St atus and PPA Execution Date
Roughly 60% of the contracts in the sample feature pricing that does not escalate (in nominal dollars) over the life of the contract

– which means that pricing actually declines over time in real dollar terms. Figure 1 5 illust rates this decline by plotting over time, in real 2012 dollars, the generation

- weighted average price among all PPAs executed within a given year (i.e., including both escalating and non

- escalating contracts) . In addition to the declining real prices over time within each PPA vintage, the steady march downward across vintages is also evident, demonstrating substantial reductions in pricing by PPA execution date. All technology types

– PV, CPV, and CSP

– are included in Figure 1 5

.

Figure 1 5 . Generation

- Weight ed Average PPA Prices Over Time by Contract Vintage $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300Sep-02Sep-03Sep-04Sep-05Sep-06Sep-07Sep-08Sep-09Sep-10Sep-11Sep-12Sep-13

PPA Execution Date Operating (2,605 MW, 42 contracts) Planned (1,684 MW, 15 contracts)Levelized PPA Price (2012 $/MWh) 32 MW (New York)

210 MW 550 MW

$0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $25020062008201020122014201620182020202220242026202820302032203420362038204020422044204620482050Gen-Weighted Average PPA Price (2012 $/MWh) 2006 (7 MW, 1 contract)

2009 (1,066 MW, 14 contracts) 2008 (770 MW, 3 contracts)

2010 (1,193 MW, 21 contracts)
2011 (463 MW, 7 contracts) 2012 (590 MW, 5 contracts)

2013 (135 MW, 5 contracts)25 To provide a clearer look at the time trend, Figure 1 6 simply levelizes the price streams shown in Figure 1 5 . Based on this sample, levelized PPA prices for utility

- scale solar projects have falle n by roughly $25/MWh per year on average over this period. 36

Figure 1 6 . Levelized Generation

- Weighted Average PPA Prices by Contract Vintage
This strong time trend , along with small sample size in the most

- recent years, complicates more

refined analysis of other variables examined in earlier sections, such as regional differences (though again, nearly the entire sample is in the West) , tracking versus fixed

- tilt, and c

- Si versus thin

- film. To try and control for the influence of time, one could potentia lly analyze these differences within a single year (e.g., 2009 or 2010, years in which the sample is largest), but doing so would divide the sample to the point where sample size is too small to reliably discern any differences (and any discernible differe nces would, by now, be three to four years old, calling into question their current relevance).
Furthermore, it is not clear that some of these variables should even have much of an impact on PPA price s . For example, several of the most

- recent PV contr acts in the sample note uncertainty over whether or not tracking systems will be used, or even whether c

- Si or thin

- film modules will be deployed. Yet the executed PPA price is the same regardless of the ultimate project configuration, suggesting that the choice of tracking versus fixed

- tilt or c

- Si versus thin

- film is

36 In Figures 15 and 16, the small sample size in 2011, 2012, and 2013 relative to the much larger sample of contracts signed in either 2009 or 2010 might lead some to conclude that the utility

- scale solar market is cooling down. Although there has been some chatter in the trade press to this effect (Caley 2013) , Figures 15 and 16 should not necessarily be used to support that argument. Rather, the declini ng sample size in Figures 15 and 16 is likely more the result of two factors: (1) 2013 represents just a partial year, and (2) FERC Electronic Quarterly Reports, which are the principal data source for PPA price data, are only filed once projects are oper ational and delivering power. As a result, the 2011, 2012, and 2013 sample will likely grow in future years with the build

- out of projects that signed PPAs in those earlier years. $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250

2006 1 7 2007 0 0 2008 3 770 2009 14 1,066 2010 21 1,193 2011 7 463 2012 5 590 2013 5 135 PPA Year: Contracts: MW:LevelizedGen-Weighted Average PPA Price (2012 $/MWh)26 (at least in these ca ses) not a critical determinant of PPA pricing. 37 Instead, the time trend

– in large part reflecting falling module costs , as well as expectations for even further decli nes in module and projects costs in the future 38

– has likely been the dominant influence on PPA prices in recent years, as illustrated by the somewhat

- controlled case study presented in the Copper Mountain text box below

.

37 This could be because tracking systems add up

- front costs to the system ( see Figure 2 in Section 2) that are recouped over time through greater energy yield ( see Figure 11 in Section 4), thereby leaving the net impact on PPA prices largely a wash. In support of this theory, the Public Service Company of New Mexico recently est imated (based on a review of 216 solar responses to its 2012 Renewable RFP ) that the average PPA price benefit of single

axis tracking is just $3/MWh, or less than 4% of a levelized PPA price in the mid

- $70/MWh range ( O’Connell 2013 ). 38 The steady decline in levelized PPA prices in recent years is not fully consistent with the moderating decline in installed project prices shown earlier in Section 2. A primary reason is that PPA prices are often negotiated on a forward

- looking basis

– i.e., based on what d evelopers think that modules and projects will cost a year or two in the future when the project is actually built (recall from Figure 14 that nearly 40% of the PPA price sample in capacity terms comes from projects not yet built). The declining cost envi ronment of recent years has, no doubt, influenced expectations for future project costs and, in turn, achievable PPA prices. A second potential explanation is that the installed project prices presented in Section 2 may be conservative in the sense that t hey are backward

- looking, focusing on projects installed through 2012 only. Copper Mountain Projects Illustrate Strong Time Trend in PPA Prices

Boulde r City, Nevada is home to a variety of utility

- scale solar projects, including the 64 MW AC Nevada Solar One CSP project as well as four phases (each successively larger than the previous) of the Copper Mountain PV projects, which, when fully operational , w ill total 458 MW AC . The four Copper Mountain projects provide a somewhat

- controlled example of the strong trend of falling PPA prices over time, in the sense that they are all located in the same contiguous area, are all owned and operated by the same ind ependent power producer (Sempra Generation U.S. Gas & Power) , and the first three phase s all use First Solar ’s CdTe thin

- film modules in a fixed

- tilt configuration (and therefore have similar actual or expected capacity factors in th e mid

- 20% range) and ha ve long

- term PPAs with the same counterparty (PG&E). Notably, in a high

- profile nod to the increasing cost

- competitiveness of c

- Si technology relative to thin film, Sempra announced in August 2013 that the fourth phase (which has a 20

- year PPA with the So uthern California Public Power Authority) would use c

- Si modules made by Trina Solar. The PPA for the initial 10 MW phase (called El Dorado, though often considered part of Copper Mountain 1) was executed in December 2008 at a levelized price of roughly $ 150/MWh (in real 2012 dollars). Six months later (June 2009), an additional 48 MW PPA (Copper Mountain 1) was executed at the same price as El Dorado (both of these were 20

- year PPAs). Roughly two years later (July 2011), a 25

- year PPA for another 150 MW (Copper Mountain 2) was executed at a levelized price of about $103/MWh (real 2012 dollars). And finally, in August 2012 (a full year before Trina Solar was selected as the module supplier) , a 20

- year PPA for another 250 MW (Copper Mountain 3) was execut ed at a levelized price of roughly $82/MWh (real 2012 dollars).
Given the underlying similarities among these four projects, the ~$70/MWh decrease in levelized PPA prices over this roughly 3

- year period (the magnitude of which is consistent with the decli ne seen across the full sample in Figure 16) can presumably be attributed primarily to the declining cost of solar modules (and, to a lesser extent, other balance

- of

- system costs) over this period. Other possible contributors include the realization of gr eater scale economies with each successively larger phase (though Figure 3 suggests that scale economies may diminish beyond 5

- 10 MW), as well as improvements in operating costs as Sempra gains greater experience with these projects. Whatever the true com bination of drivers, the controlled nature of this case study support s the notion that an analysis of the other variables not examined in this section

– tracking vs. fixed

- tilt , thin

- film vs. c

- Si

– is not strictly necessary in order to explain the strong time trend shown in Figure 16

.27 Price Comparison With Feed

- In Tariff (“FIT”) Programs That Support Utility

- Scale Projects

At least three feed

- in tariff (“FIT”) programs in the U.S. support projects that fall under the definition of utility

- scale used in t his report (i.e., ground

- mounted projects larger than 2 MW). T he Sacrame nto Municipal Utility District (“SMUD ”) allows projects up to 5 MW to participate (though larger projects have been subdivided into 5 MW parcels in order to qualify) , Vermont’s Sustai nably Priced Energy Enterprise Development (“VT SPEED”) program allows projects up to 2.2 MW, and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (“LADWP”) allows projects up to 3 MW. Although projects participating in these three programs are NOT included in the PPA price sample analyzed in this report, it is, nevertheless, interesting to review the prices paid by these FIT programs and co mpare them to the prevailing PPA prices in the sample.

SMUD’s FIT prices are split into nine different time

- of

- delivery periods, and are fixed for the 20

- year duration of the contract. Based on a typical PV production profile in SMUD’s service territory, SMUD estimates the PV

- production

- weighted average annual nominal dollar price to be around $148/MWh (which equates to a levelized 20

- year price of roughly $130/MWh in real 2012 dollars) for projects commencing commercial operations in 2012 (i.e., when most of the participating projects came online). SMUD’s progra m was fully subscribed within a week, suggesting that develo pers considered the pricing to be attractive. Based on where utility

- scale solar PPA prices in the West were in early 2010 when the program was launched (see Figure 13) , however, SMUD’s price does not seem to be too out of line with the market.

The VT SP EED program originally offered a price of $300/MWh flat for 25 years ( around $260/MWh levelized in real 2012 dollars), and was quickly over

- subscribed. The price was subsequently reduced to $240/MWh ($210/MWh levelized in real 2012 dollars), and in early 2013, the program switched to a competitive reverse

- auction format, whereby developers compete for contracts by offering the lowest price (below a pre

- established price cap of $257/MWh) at which they are willing to sign a contract. The two winning bids

un der that Spring 2013 auction came in at $134

- $144/MWh flat for 25 years ($114

- $122/MWh levelized in 2012 dollars)

– substantially lower than what earlier participants are being paid (and comparable to what SMUD is paying in the sunny Central Valley of Cali fornia). Until these projects are built and operating, however, it remains to be seen whether $134/MWh is sufficient to support solar in sun

- challenged New England

. LADWP’s program is divided into five 20 MW blocks, with the base price (to be adjusted by TOD factors) starting at $170/MWh in the first block and declining by $10/MWh in each subsequent block ( i

. e ., to $130/MWh for the last 20 MW block). The first 20 MW block was offered (and oversubscribed) in early 2013, and allocation of the second block was underway in July 2013. Although the local ratepayer advocate has criticized this program as paying too much for solar based on the low market prices available elsewhere (and evident in Figure 13) , LADWP counters that it can cost up to $30/MWh to wheel that cheap desert solar power into Los Angeles

– a cost it can avoid by developing smaller projects closer to home. In addition to this 100 MW fixed

- price program, LADWP plans to launch a related program in the near future that

– like Vermont

– will use competitive bidding to allocate an addi tional 50 MW.28 

## 6 . Conclusions

Though par abolic trough CSP projects have been operating in the U.S. since the late 1980s, there were virtually no commercial utility

- scale PV projects in operation prior to 2007. By 2012

– just five years later

– utility

- scale had become the largest sector of the overall PV market in the U.S. Over this same five

- year period , CSP also exp erienced a bit of a renaissance, with new parabolic trough systems operating and under construction, and several large power tower projects also nearing completion in the United St ates.

With a critical mass of new projects now online and in some cases hav ing operated for several years (generating data in addition to electricity), the utility

- scale sector is ripe for analysis. This report, which is envisioned to be the first in an ongoing annual series, meets this need through in

depth, data

- driven analysis of not just installed project costs or prices

– i.e., the traditional realm of solar economics analyses

– but also operating costs, capacity factors, and PPA prices. As such, it provides a more

- integrated and holistic view of the market than is commonly found.
Given the nascent state of the market, data availability is still , in places, an issue in this inaugural edition. The report nevertheless paints a coherent picture that w ill be refined, enriched, and solidified over time as more data become available. Until then, s ome of the more

- notable findings from this year’s report include the following:

• Installed Prices: Installed project prices have fallen by nearly one

- third sin ce the 2007

- 20 09 period, from around $ 5. 6 /W AC to $ 3

. 9 /W AC on average for projects completed in 2012 (with some projects higher and others lower). Most of the decline has been concentrated among projects using c

- Si modules, as the gap between c

- Si and thin

- film steadily eroded over this period. In response to falling c

- Si module prices, there has been a marked increase in the proportion of projects using c

- Si (r ather than thin

- film) modules.

• O&M Costs: Although O&M cost data are extremely limited at prese nt , what little empirical data exist suggest that actual costs have largely been in line with pro forma operating cost projections gleaned from several bond offering prospectuses. For PV, O&M costs appear to be in the neighborhood of $20

- $40/kW AC - year , or $10

- $20/MWh

. CSP O&M costs are higher, presumably due to the plumbing and thermal components , and come in around $60/kW AC - year

.

• Capacity Factors: Like insolation levels, PV c apacity factors vary by region . They also vary depending on whether a project is installed at a fixed

- tilt or uses a tracking device, with single

- axis trackers able to achieve capacity factors in excess of 30% in some of the better locations ( thus confirming the industry rule of thumb that single

- axis tracking provides a 20% boost i n output ). In lieu of trackers, and enabled by the sharp decline in module prices, some projects have instead opted to oversize the PV array relative to the capacity rating of the inverters as a way to boost capacity factor

. On the CSP side of the market , p arabolic trough systems that have been operating in the U.S. for more than 2 0 years are still (in 2012) achieving capacity fac tors in excess of 20% (solar portion only
, no storage ), which is comparable to newer trough projects. Meanwhile, a pilot proje ct for powe r tower technology has underperformed relative to expectations , but several much29 large r power tower projects under construction will soon test that technology on a truly commercial scale in the United States (several commercial power tower proje cts have been operating in the Mediterranean region for several years).

• PPA Prices: Driven primarily by lower installed project prices (which, in turn, have been driven primarily by declining module prices) , levelized PPA prices have fallen dramatically o ver time, by $25/MWh per year on average. Some of the most

- recent PPAs in the West have levelized PPA prices as low as $50

- 60/MWh (in 2012 dollars), which, in some cases, is competitive with wind power projects in that same region. Solar appears to be pa rticularly competitive when considering its tim e

- of

- delivery p ricing advantage over wind (roughly $25/MWh in California at current levels of penetration).
Utility

- scale project developers (as well as utilities) can use these findings and data to refine th eir view s of the market and /or to inform the various tradeoffs that they must regularly make , for example regarding choice of technology. Policymakers and the general public will presumably come away from this report with a newfound understanding of just how competitive utility

- scale solar has become in a very short time

- period

. C onsultants, modelers, and financiers , meanwhile,

can use these empirical data from actual operating experience to either validate or impr ove their modeling assumptions, thereby l eading to better representation of this sector in future studies.
Although the insights in this first edition are compelling , they are nevertheless still constrained by limited data availability. As the market itself continues to grow in future years, s o too will the sample of data available for analysis, highlighting the importance of maintaining and updating these fledgling data sets in the coming years so that future editions of this report can continue to track this rapidly growing market.30 

### A note on the sources of data used in this report:
Much of the analysis in this report is based on primary data, the sources of which are listed below (along with some general secondary sources), broken out by data set:

• Nameplate Capacity: Form EIA

- 860 , FERC F orm 556, state regulatory filings, trade press articles

• Installed P rices (Section 2) : Section 1603 grant data from the U.S. Treasury, FERC Form 1, data from applicable state rebate and incentive programs, state regulatory filings, company financial filing s, trade press articles , and data previously gathered by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL )

• O&M C osts (Section 3) : FitchRatings (projections only ) and FERC Form 1 (actual/empirical data )

• Capacity F actors (Section 4) : FERC Electronic Quarterl y Reports, FERC Form 1, Form EIA

- 923 , state regulatory filings

• PPA P rices (Section 5) : FE RC Electronic Quarterly Reports, FERC Form 1, Form EIA

923, state regulatory filings, company financial filings, trade press articles In addition, the individual ref erence documents listed below provided additional data and/or helped to inform the analysis

.



## References

Barbose, G., N. Darghouth, S. Weaver, and R. Wiser. 2013. Tracking the Sun VI: An Historical Summary of the Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the U nited States from 1998 to 2012

. LBNL

- 6350E . Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Caley, N. 2013. “If This Is The End For Utility

- Scale, It’s Quite a Finale.” Solar Industry
, Volume 6, Number 7, August 2013, pp. 1, 10

- 11.
Feldman, D., G. Barbose, R. Margolis, N. Darghouth
, T. James, S. Weaver, A. Goodrich , and R. Wiser . 201 3

. Photovoltaic S ystem Pricing Trends: Historical, Recent, and Near

- Term Projections

– 2013 Editio n

. PR

- 6A20

- 60207

. G olden
, C olorado : N ational Renewable Energy Laboratory

. FitchRatings. 2013. Solar Star Fu nding, LLC . Presale Report, June 13, 2013.
FitchRatings. 2012. Topaz Solar Farms LLC . Presale Report, February 14, 2012.
FitchRatings. 2011. Genesis Solar, LLC . New Issue Report, August 25, 2011.

GTM Research and SEIA. 2013. U.S. Solar Market Insight Re port: 2012 Year in Review.31 Gunther, E.A. 2013. “eSolar Sierra SunTower: A History of Concentrating Solar Power Underperformance.” http://guntherportfolio.com/2013/04/esolar

- sierra

- suntower

- a

- history

of

- concentrating

- solar

- power

- underperformance/ , accessed July 23, 2013.
Huibregtse , R. 2 013. Communication with Rick Huibregtse , Senior Vice President of Engineering at eSolar, September 6 and 9, 2013.

Mills , A. and R. Wiser . 2012

. Changes in the Economic Value of Variable Generation at High Penetration Levels: A Pilot Case Study of California

. LBNL

- 5445E . Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

O’ Connell , P. 2013. “ Direct Testimony of Patrick J. O’Connell ” in Case No. 13

- 00183

- UT, In The Matter Of Public Service Company Of New Mexico’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Procurement Plan For 2014 And Proposed 2014 Rider Rate Under Rate Rider No. 36 , f iled before the Pu blic Regulation Commission of New Mexico on July 1, 2013.
Palo Alto. 2012. Excerpted Draft Minutes of the September 5, 2012 Utilities Advisory Commission Meeting of the City of Palo Alto.
Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). 2013. Major Solar Pr ojects in the United States: Operating, Under Construction, or Under Development . Updated June 24, 2013 and accessed ( http://www.seia.org/research

- resources/major

- solar

- projects

- list) on July 23, 2013.
Wesoff, E. 2013. “eSolar Picks Up $22M for Concentrat ed Solar For Oil and Gas Markets.” Greentech Media, September 18, 2013

. Wiser, R. and M. Bolinger. 2013. 2012 Wind Technologies Market Report

. LBNL

- 6356E

. Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

## Acknowledgments Key Report Contacts
The authors thank Minh Le, Elaine Ulrich, Kelly Knutsen, Christina Nichols, and Ammar Qusaibaty of the U.S. Department of Energy's Solar Energy Technologies Office for their support of this work. The authors would also like to thank Justin Baca and Will Lent of the Solar Energy Industries Association (“SEIA”) for maintaining and sharing SEIA’s list of major solar projects in the U.S. Thanks also to the following individuals for reviewing earlier drafts of this report: Galen Barbose and Ryan Wiser (LBNL); Kelly Knutsen (U.S. DOE); Josh Lutton (Woodlawn Associates); Michael Rogol (PHOTON Consulting); David Feldman, Ran Fu, and Michael Woodhouse (NREL); Mike Taylor (Solar Electric Power Association); Will Lent (SEIA); Jim Baak (The Vote Solar Initiative); Gwendolyn Bredehoeft (Energy Information Administration); and Paul Mayo and Tom Anderson (PE/Q Energy, Inc). Of course, any remaining errors or omissions are the sole responsibility of the authors.
Cover photos courtesy of Sempra U.S. Gas & Power, NREL, and BrightSource Limitless.
The work described in this report was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Solar Energy Technologies Office, within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Mark Bolinger 603-795-4937; MABolinger@lbl.gov
Samantha Weaver 510-486-6375; SLWeaver@lbl.gov 

## Download the Report http://emp.lbl.gov/reports/re



## Disclaimer
This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. While this document is believed to contain correct information, neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor The Regents of the University of California, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal 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 its 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, or The Regents of the University of California. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof, or The Regents of the University of California.
Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is an equal opportunity employer.

LBNL-6408E/September 2013