SPPA providers can provide the funding or installation themselves (EPA, 2014). Thus homeowners only need sign the contract and then can enjoy cleaner electricity, usually at a lower price. The City of College Park has many PV solar installations through SPPA as well. One of the biggest projects is a 631 kW PV solar installed at the University of Maryland in 2010. A 20-year Power Purchasing Agreement (PPA) is provided with Washington Gas Energy Services (WGES). More than 2,600 PV solar panels have been installed on the roof, generating 7,920 MWh annually, with an estimated annual utility savings of $88,150. Table 2.5 Common PV Solar Financing Options Name Upfront Cost Term Advantages Disadvantages Cash Purchase pay full upfront cost directly with cash none avoid financing cost and third party participation homeowners enjoy all rebates, incentives, and SRECs. large one-time investment (avg. $20,000 for a 4kW system) homeowner responsible for system maintenance Home Equity Loan borrow upfront cost against home value 5 to 30 years interest rate can be favorable and tax deductible homeowner enjoys all rebates, incentives, and, SRECs interest rate may increase homeowner responsible for system maintenance Other Loan Products borrow upfront cost from bank, credit union, or against PV solar itself up to 10 years interest rate may increase homeowner responsible for system maintenance interest rate often not tax deductible homeowner responsible for system maintenance SPPA third party pays upfront cost and owns the system; homeowners lease the system, purchase power 15 to 20 years no direct upfront cost third party usually responsible for maintenance third party owns the system and enjoys the rebates, tax incentives, and SRECs Ongoing savings are lower than direct cash payment Property Assessed Clean Energy most upfront cost covered by local government secured with a property lien 10 to 20 years low upfront cost (about $100) homeowner owns system interest tax deductible mortgage lien may be problematic homeowner responsible for system maintenance Note: Information in the table has referred to fact sheet of DOE
Environmental Protection Agency of United States (EPA). (2014). Solar power purchase agreements. Retrieved from . Accessed by 04/01/2015. EPA. (2014). E-grid 9th edition version 1.0 year 2010 summary tables. Retrieved from . Accessed by 03/02/2015. Ethical Electric. (2014). Environmental disclosure statement. Retrieved from . Accessed by 03/25/2015. Feldman, D., Friedman, B., & Margolis, R. (2013). Financing, overhead, and profit: An in-depth discussion of costs associated with third-party financing of residential and commercial photovoltaic systems. Retrieved from . Accessed by 03/01/2015. Hernandez, M. (2013). Solar power to the people: The rise of rooftop solar among the middle class. Retrieved from . Accessed by 03/23/2015. Interstate Renewable Energy Council, Inc. (2013a). Simplifying the solar permitting process: Residential solar permitting best practices explained. Retrieved from . Accessed by 04/02/2015. IREC. (2013b). Minimizing overlap in PV system approval processes: Case studies and analysis. Retrieved from . Accessed by 04/02/2015. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). (2013). Why are residential PV prices in Germany so much lower than in the United States. Retrieved from . Accessed by 03/24/2015. Maryland Energy Administration (MEA). (2014). Request for information: Comprehensive online application portal for solar installations. Retrieved from . Accessed by 04/02/2015. Maryland/DC/Virginia Solar Energy Industries Association (MDV-SEIA). (2014). Permitting and soft costs. Retrieved from . Accessed by 03/22/2015. National Association of Regional Councils (NARC). (2015). Solar ready regions – MWCOG. Retrieved by . Accessed by 03/26/2015. Pepco. (2015). Net energy metering and small generator interconnection application checklist. Retrieved from . Accessed by 04/03/2015. Reyes, J. (2014). Infinite invention: NextFab Company aims to make solar installations easy. Retrieved from . Accessed by 03/28/2015. Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). (2015). Photovoltaic (Solar Electric). Retrieved by . Accessed by 04/16/2015.
Location Program Project Cost Savings Term Major improvements San Luis Obispo, CA California FIRST The CaliPaso Winery $811,419 $79,214 20 Solar PV Sacramento, CA Clean Energy Sacramento Capital Mall Building $513,000 $47,000 25 HVAC installation Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles County PACE Hilton Los Angeles/Universal City $7,000,000 $800,000 20 Energy efficiency glass, LED lighting, low-flow shower heads and bathtubs, new elevators Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles County PACE Historic Constance Pasadena Hotel $6,860,000 $68,280 20 Power saving, water saving Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles County PACE Teamsters’ meeting hall $236,350 $30,000 20 Solar array, cool roof, lighting Los Angeles, CA Green Finance San Francisco Prologis historic Pier 1 building $1,400,000 $350,000 20 Daylight utilization, solar PV, LED light, energy system control San Francisco, CA Figtree PACE Financing Cascade Orthopedic Supply $139,255 $22,732 25 Solar PV Butte, CA Me2 PACE University Club building $662,000 $75,000 18 HVAC installation, repair and replace windows, balance airflow, LED light Milwaukee, WI C-PACE Westport Avenue Building $170,000 $17,500 13 LED Lighting Lucas, OH Toledo-Lucas Port Authority One Maritime Plaza $1,400,000 $75,040 15 HVAC, lighting, water pump, building envelope Washtenaw, MI Ann Arbor’s PACE program Big Boy restaurant $88,488 $8,300 10 HVAC, cooking, control system, lighting Ramsey, MN Edina Emerald Energy PACE program Salut Bar American restaurant $39,308 $15,296 10 LED Lighting, control system District of Columbia DC PACE program Multifamily housing property $340,000 $40,000 10 Solar array, lighting, control system
Transportation: Bus Rapid Transit Identify highly traveled transit corridors and create routes with 10-minute, peak-hour bus headways. Create dedicated bus lanes, articulated busses, transit signal priority, bike storage onboard, and WIFI. Projections assume increased ridership as service improves, and assumes a diesel electric hybrid, providing a 30-48% reduction of emissions. Using lower end of 30% efficiency, emissions reductions are about 2126 MTCO2e/year for the entire bus system. Residential: Solar Electricity Generation Bulk purchase solar panels, with the goal of 200 kW capacity installed per year, which comes to 1 MW by 2020. Assumes $5/W installation cost at $0.118/kWh. Through 2020, emissions reduced by 2,355 MTCO2e through 2020. Cost savings could be $370,000 by 2020. The Madison report makes GHG emissions projections through 2030 with both conservative and optimistic impacts of the three analyzed strategies. All projections lead to a future where the City of Madison has not reduced its net carbon footprint, but point to a future where the net will be lower than it would have been without the programs. Several recommendations will improve Madison’s inventory process in the future. First, they must identify a consistent timeline for a community baseline year as well as systematically document emissions to make comparisons between years. Also, creating a staff position will help with the uniform and consistent tracking of data. This will ensure that data is complete and usable when it comes time to create an inventory, streamlining the process to make it more efficient and accurate. Key Lessons These reports offer three takeaways for the City of College Park: To make significant GHG emissions reductions, many different programs need to be initiated at the same time, which may call for additional City staff focused on these programs. Data gathering and tracking that is uniform over time will produce better reports for any community to work with. College Park is not alone in seeking to reduce its carbon footprint, and the City of Madison is setting a high bar among Big 10 universities. Nationwide List of GHG-Related Sustainability Activities, by Locality foot