Post on 07-Jul-2015
transcript
Ninth Avenue Terminal (NAT)Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Feasibility Study
MSE/ER C226 – Photovoltaic Materials: Students
Sebastien Lounis
Florent Martin
Eric Zielke
Presentation Outline
1. Project Background- Ninth Avenue Terminal Specifications
- Existing and Proposed Solar PV Incentives
2. Existing and Future Incentive Alternatives- Criteria Involved- Advantages and Disadvantages- Decision Analysis
3. Specifications of Recommended Solutions- Economic Analysis
4. Conclusions and Final Recommendations
Project Objective
! Evaluate the economic feasibility of installing solar panels atop the proposed vintner's hall at the Ninth Avenue Terminal (NAT) in Oakland, CA by utilizing existing and/or future-based PV incentive programs.
! Provide a final recommendation to Ninth Avenue Terminal (NAT) Partners, LLC on how to proceed with the proposed PV installation.
Project Background
• Our report was produced for the benefit of
NAT Partners, LLC
• Our Collaborators:– Ramsey Wright, NAT Partners
– Chrissy Tsai, NAT Partners
– Dustin Jolley, URS Corporation
Project Background
• Built in 1929, the NAT is a “bulk-break warehouse that served as an important shipping HUB for several decades.
• Today, it is used as for cotton storage.• The NAT faced almost complete demolition under the “Oak to 9th”
redevelopment project.
Project Background
• NAT Partners, LLC has proposed reusing the historic shipping warehouse as a vintner’s hall.
• As part of their proposal, NAT Partners expressed interest in using the 90,000 square feet of mostly un-shaded roof space for PV.
• The project will be seeking final approval from the Oakland City Council in January.
Project Background
Presently Available Incentives for the Project:– Net Energy Metering provided by PG&E
– The California Solar Initiative (CSI) Performance Based Incentive
– The California Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) of ~ 0.135 $/kWh
– The Federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for renewable energy investors
– Renewable Energy Credits (RECs)
Potential Future Policy Measures Also Considered:– Increase in FIT to 0.35 $/kWh
– Increase in FIT to 0.60 $/kWh
– PG&E rooftop leasing
Existing and Future Incentive Alternatives
Criteria Evaluated1. Economics2. Public Relations3. Branding4. Potential Power5. Ease of Implementation
Initial Screening – Project Elimination
• Initial Capital Cost/Investment• Bidding Process (i.e. large-scale)
Existing and Future Incentive Alternatives
Existing Incentive Alternative 1: CSI (Tax Equity Investor)
Utilized Roof Space: ~15,000 Sq. Ft.
Advantages:– Grid-bought power virtually
entirely displaced
– Keep RECs
– Take advantage of CSI Rebate and Net Metering
– Open to scale-up
Disadvantages:– No sellback to grid.
– Loan interest rate of 5.2% needed for grid-parity over 25 year lifetime
Existing and Future Incentive Alternatives
Existing Incentive Alternative 2: FIT (Tax Equity Investor)
Utilized Roof Space: ~90,000 Sq. Ft.
Advantages:– Net Producing - Sellback to Grid
– Use of entire roof space
– Keep RECs
Disadvantages:– Disqualified from all other state
incentive programs
– Very high capital cost
– Net loss over lifetime of system
Existing and Future Incentive Alternatives
Existing Incentive Alternative 3: CSI with PPA
Utilized Roof Space: ~15,000 Sq. Ft.
Advantages:– No capital cost– Fixed rate for electricity– Potential for system buyback after fixed
time– Keep RECs– Take advantage of net metering– No O&M costs
Disadvantages:– No sellback– Contract restrictions to building
alterations– Limited flexibility in event of short term
policy changes– Higher present rate for electricity than
grid-bought bower– Additional Administrative Costs
Existing and Future Incentive Alternatives
Future Incentive Alternative 1: 0.35$/kWh FIT (Tax Equity Investor)
Utilized Roof Space: ~90,000 Sq. Ft.
Advantages:– Net Producing - Sellback
to Grid
– Use of entire roof space
Disadvantages:– Disqualified from all other
state incentive programs
– Very high capital cost
– Feasibility depend
– RECs owned by PG&E
Existing and Future Incentive Alternatives
Future Incentive Alternative 2: 0.60$/kWh FIT (Tax Equity Investor)
Utilized Roof Space: ~90,000 Sq. Ft.
Advantages:– Net Producing - Sellback
to Grid
– Use of entire roof space
Disadvantages:– Disqualified from all other
state incentive programs
– Very high capital cost
– Feasibility depend
– RECs owned by PG&E
Existing and Future Incentive Alternatives
Future Incentive Alternative 3: PG&E Lease Agreement
Utilized Roof Space: ~90,000 Sq. Ft.
Advantages:– Revenue from renting of
roof space
– No capital cost
– No O&M cost
Disadvantages:– Do not own power
produced – no sellback
– Contract restrictions on building alterations
– Additional administrative costs
Existing and Future Incentive Alternatives
Delphi Method
• We used a Delphi method based on our criteria to rank the 4 alternatives with available economic data (2 existing, 2 future)
• Each criterion was given a weighting factor based on input from our group and our collaborators.
• Each alternative was ranked according to each criterion.
• The product of the weight and ranking gives the results:
• PPA and Lease-agreement excluded due to lack of economic data.
Alternative: Delphi Score
CSI (Tax Equity Investor) – present 38.5 (present winner)
FIT (Tax Equity Investor) – present 23.5
0.35 $/kWh FIT – future 26.5
0.60 $/kWh FIT – future 32.5 (future winner)
Specifications of Recommended Solutions
The system pays back in 25 years assuming a 5.2% interest rate and an escalation rate of the cost of electricity equal to 6%.
NB: The calculated price of electricity is corrected for inflation . Real rates were used for calculations instead of nominal rates.
250 kW system, net metering alternative
$6.2/Wp installation costSunPower 305 solar panels
0.22$/kWh for 5 years under CSI
Specifications of Recommended Solutions
1.5 MW system, Feed-In-Tariff Alternative
With a 60c/kWh FIT and a 10% interest rate, the payback period is 11 years.
$5.8/Wp installation cost
SunPower 305 solar panels
Conclusions and Final Recommendations
System Recommendation: Load-Matching 250 kW array
Financing: (1) Loan from Independent Tax Equity Investor or (2) PPA through a Solar Service Provider.
Advantages: – Potential for parity with grid-bought power
– Ownership of RECs
– Flexibility to adapt with future policy measures
Caveat: Feasibility/ Profitability very Dependent on Negotiated Rates