Eugene Airport Solar Feasibility Study

Eugene Airport

Solar Feasibility Study

Final Report

HMMH Report No. 308220

February 16, 2018

Prepared for:

RS&H and Eugene Airport

Eugene Airport

Solar Feasibility Study

Final Report

HMMH Report No. 308220

February 16, 2018

Prepared for:

Eugene Airport 28801 Douglas Drive

Eugene, OR 97402

RS&H 337 North 2370 West, Suite 218

Salt Lake City, UT 84116

Prepared by:

Philip DeVita (HMMH) Stephen Barrett (Barrett Energy Resources Group)

HMMH 77 South Bedford Street Burlington, MA 01803

T 781.229.0707 F 781.229.7939

Executive Summary

Eugene Airport Solar Feasibility Study

iii

Executive Summary

Under contract to RS&H for the Eugene Airport (EUG) Master Plan, HMMH and Barrett Energy Resource Group (BERG), the “HMMH team,” was tasked with preparing a solar feasibility study for EUG. This report provides the results of all five tasks completed for the project. The five tasks included:

Task 1 – Kickoff Meeting and Context for Project

HMMH participated in a project kickoff call with RS&H and the airport. The HMMH team summarized the proposed project, identified information needs, and incorporated the airport comments to make sure that the scope of work is responsive to the airport and master plan objectives.

Task 2 – Physical Constraints Analysis

HMMH worked with the Airport’s master planning team to identify potential project sites based on physical constraints. HMMH accessed the following planning information to identify potential sites for the development of solar photovoltaic (PV) projects at Eugene Airport:

The Master Plan1 and Airport Layout Plan2 were used to identify locations that are compatible with the Airport’s existing uses and future development;

Environmental resources were reviewed to ensure sites would avoid natural resource impacts and potential permitting delays; and

Electrical infrastructure was evaluated to determine technical feasibility of interconnecting projects sites and the size of solar projects.

Once sites were determined to be feasible after using the initial criteria listed above for screening, they were then evaluated for their compatibility with airport sensitive receptors using the FAA’s GlareGauge model (formerly the Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Tool (SGHAT)).

As a result of this study, HMMH has confirmed there are ten (10) prospective solar PV project site locations, as shown in Figure ES1, that are physically viable and compatible with airport activities. The prospective PV project sites fit into three different size categories:

Smaller sites co-located with existing buildings (e.g., on top of the Terminal Building).

Medium sites designed as part of canopy structures over surface parking areas (e.g., main surface parking lot) to provide added benefits to customers of covered parking.

Larger sites to produce a significant amount of electricity from remote areas of the airport that are not designated for other types of future development.

1 Mead & Hunt. 2010. Eugene Airport Master Plan Update. Prepared for the City of Eugene, Oregon. February 2010. 2 Mead & Hunt. 2010. Airport Layout Plan Update. Prepare for the City of Eugene, Oregon. February 2010.

Executive Summary


iv

Figure ES-1. Potential Solar PV Project Site Locations at Eugene Airport

Task 3 – Airport Energy Usage and Economic Analysis

HMMH prepared an airport energy usage and economic analysis to evaluate the amount and pattern of energy usage on airport property and the amount of electricity that could be produced by a solar PV system and used on airport based on the sizing assumptions prepared in Task 2. HMMH obtained electricity bills for three airport accounts for a consecutive 12-month period from July 2016 to June 2017. Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) is the provider of electricity. The three airport accounts evaluated were:

28800 Douglas Drive: Airport Terminal building;

90711 Northrop Drive: ARFF building; and

28827 Douglas Drive: Airport Operations Center building.

Executive Summary


v

The data provided information on electricity usage by month and costs broken down by usage charges and fixed charges. This information was used to determine if solar power could off-set electricity acquired from the utility grid and if the solar projects could produce long-term cost savings for the Airport.

HMMH also evaluated potential electricity generation from the solar project site locations identified in Task 2. Each site was evaluated using the U.S. Department of Energy’s PVWatts Calculator to assess the amount of solar electricity production forecasted based on the solar project location, size, and generic design characteristics given the climate and weather conditions in Eugene.

The HMMH team investigated existing federal, state, and local policies and incentives that could affect the technical and financial feasibility of installing solar projects at EUG. These policies and incentives include net energy metering, which determines the amount and value of excess power that could be exported back to the utility grid, tax credits that may be available to reduce solar project installation costs, and federal and state grants and loans.

Considering that different financial incentives apply to different project owner types, feasible ownership models were reviewed. The HMMH team described the two primary ownership options: airport-owned and third party-owned. Additionally, the HMMH team described with federal and state energy and incentive policies - including net energy metering, investment tax credits, renewable portfolio standards - and which incentive policies are applicable to different ownership scenarios.

The information on energy usage, solar power production, energy policies, and ownership modeled can be used to identify specific sites that could be pursued and the solar project structure that would be most economical for individual solar project sites. As one example, the HMMH team analyzed the economics of the airport constructing and owning a 604-kilowatt (kW) solar project on the roof of the Airport Terminal. Without any federal, state, or local incentives, in this example, it would take the Airport 39 years to accrue electricity savings generated from the solar project. However, three other funding scenarios are presented for consideration that could reduce the system costs and improve the payback.

Task 4 – Implementation Plan including Regulatory Review and Coordination with Local Utility

Under Task 4, HMMH prepared an implementation plan for developing a solar project. The specific steps presented are as follows:

Develop the Business Case for Solar Energy in a Vision Statement which considers several important business drivers for the project such as:

1. Solar, with no operational fuel costs and little maintenance, provides a stable cost of power

and acts as a hedge against volatile fossil fuel prices.

2. On-site power generation infrastructure investments will preserve power reliability and

operational capacity of the Airport even in times when grid failure occurs avoiding delays

and business costs associated with power outages.

3. The value of renewable energy is expected to increase in the future with rising demand for

renewable energy certificates and carbon credits.

4. Investments in environmental projects will facilitate growth of a sustainable airport.

5. Development of the Airport as a world class facility, including the visible installation of

progressive technologies like solar, will promote regional economic development to visitors.

Executive Summary


vi

6. While the City of Eugene is fortunate to have access to low cost renewable energy sources,

solar will provide diversification and increased reliability.

7. Solar is consistent with the City’s climate change objectives.

Review Development Options – specifically the airport-owned and third party-owned scenarios - and the key components of each.

Engage in communications with the City and the EWEB. The purpose would be to discuss the City’s renewable energy and emission reduction targets, the Airport’s planning initiatives around solar and the experience of solar and airports nationwide, and if a showcase solar project at the Airport could fit into a long-term plan.

Develop an FAA Approval Plan – coordination with the FAA on issues such as airspace review, funding, and lease approvals is critical.

Build a Procurement Schedule – this includes getting a handle on the specific technical specifications of the solar project.

Develop an Engineering and Construction Schedule to map out the overall project development timeline.

Confirm EWEB Interconnection and Approval Process to ensure system compatibility with the broader electricity distribution network.

Task 5 – Report with Recommendations

To complete the project, HMMH has compiled all of the information from the previous Tasks into a final report. It includes Tasks 2 through 4 along with an introduction to the project and conclusions and recommendations.

The report shows that there are many opportunities to develop a solar photovoltaic project that is compatible with existing and long-term growth of aviation activities at Eugene Airport. Project sites can make use of underutilized property, either undeveloped land or on buildings or over surface parking, to generate clean, renewable energy. Specific locations and project sizes have been identified, information that can be used to evaluate future opportunities.

The economics of these projects for the airport are not strong at this time primarily due to a lack of state financial incentives which make solar power comparatively expensive to existing power as illustrated below by the 31 to 39-year payback period. However, as shown in Task 3, the team presented two primary options for pursuing solar:

1. Airport finances, builds, owns, and operates its own solar project on the airport terminal. Site I is identified as the likely best project site. Payback is 31-39 years unless the airport were to pursue an FAA Energy Efficiency grant.

2. Airport leases land to a private developer who finances, builds, owns, and operates a project and sells the power either to the airport or to another customer. Site D is identified as the likely best project site. The economic viability of this type of project would depend on the developer’s ability to find a customer (e.g., City, Utility, or University) who would pay a price premium for the power generated.

The most economical option for developing solar would be for the Airport to apply to the FAA for an Energy Efficiency grant through for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) which would provide federal funding for 90 percent of the project costs and lower the payback on the local match to 3 to 4 years. As the funds used for solar would be taken from other identified airport improvements eligible for AIP

Executive Summary


vii

funds; the Airport would need to determine that those improvements could be delayed. Other airports (e.g., Portland International Jetport) have recently used this funding mechanism to develop solar.

Except for the AIP funding option, proceeding with a solar project at Eugene Airport is dependent on future public policy decisions on the local and state level to acquire solar power. While the economics of the two ownership options are challenging, these conditions can change in a short period of time and the development of an implementation plan is important to be able to respond to an opportunity in a timely manner. Programs similar to the Solar Development Incentive Program authorized by the Oregon legislature may become available to the City of Eugene and having the siting assessment completed will enable the Airport to respond to such opportunities. Furthermore, a partnership with the City and EWEB could lead to a successful pilot project to meet the objectives of all parties and demonstrate a commitment to regional economic development, energy security, and environmental goals.

Executive Summary


viii

This page intentionally left blank

Contents


ix

Contents

1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Solar Background at Airports ............................................................................................................................. 1

2 Physical Constraints Analysis .......................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Physical Constraints Analysis.............................................................................................................................. 52.1.1 Airport Planning ................................................................................................................................................. 52.1.2 Environmental Resources................................................................................................................................... 72.1.3 Electrical Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................... 102.1.4 Glare Standards ................................................................................................................................................ 132.2 Conclusions and Next Steps ............................................................................................................................. 18

3 Airport Energy Usage and Economic Analysis ........................................................................... 21

3.1 Electricity Usage and Costs .............................................................................................................................. 213.2 Solar Electricity Production .............................................................................................................................. 243.3 Solar Policies and Incentives ............................................................................................................................ 253.4 Development and Ownership Options – Airport-Owned vs Third-Party Owned ............................................. 283.4.1 Airport-Owned with On-Site Power Use .......................................................................................................... 293.4.2 Third-Party Owned with Off-Site Use ............................................................................................................... 303.5 Simple Payback Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 303.5.1 On-Site Use - Airport-Owned ........................................................................................................................... 303.5.2 Off-Site Use - Third-Party Developer ................................................................................................................ 313.6 Conclusions and Next Steps ............................................................................................................................. 32

4 Feasibility Ownership Models, Regulatory Review, and Coordination with Local Utility ................................................................................................................................................. 33

4.1 The Plan for Implementation ........................................................................................................................... 334.1.1 Step 1: Developing the Business Case for the Solar Vision .............................................................................. 344.1.2 Step 2: Review of Project Options .................................................................................................................... 354.1.3 Step 3: Communication with City Officials and the Utility ............................................................................... 364.1.4 Step 4: Develop FAA Approval Plan .................................................................................................................. 374.1.5 Step 5: Build a Procurement Schedule ............................................................................................................. 374.1.6 Step 6: Develop Engineering and Construction Schedule ................................................................................ 384.1.7 Step 7: Confirm EWEB Interconnection and Approval Process ........................................................................ 394.1.8 Conclusions and Next Steps ............................................................................................................................. 40

5 Conclusions and Next Steps ......................................................................................................... 41

Appendix A GlareGauge Modeling Files for Projects A-G .......................................................... A-1

Appendix B GlareGauge Site Optimization for Project F ..............................................................B-1

Appendix C GlareGauge Modeling Files for Projects H, I, and J ................................................ C-1

Contents


x

Figures

Figure ES-1. Potential Solar PV Project Site Locations at Eugene Airport .................................................................... ivFigure 1. Solar Projects at U.S. Airports ........................................................................................................................ 2Figure 2. Solar Projects at Airports Across the World .................................................................................................. 2Figure 3. Examples of Airport Solar Project Designs ..................................................................................................... 3Figure 4. EUG Aviation Safety Zones and Airport Infrastructure .................................................................................. 6Figure 5. Aviation Safety Zones with Alternative Revenue Sites .................................................................................. 9Figure 6. Wetland Resources Mapped at EUG ............................................................................................................ 10Figure 7. Significant Transmission Infrastructure ....................................................................................................... 12Figure 8. ATCT and Pilot Observation Points Assessed For Glare ............................................................................... 16Figure 9. Cross-section of a Typical Solar Canopy Structure ....................................................................................... 17Figure 10. Location of Three Airport Facilities with Electrical Bills ............................................................................. 22Figure 11. Electricity Consumed by Month at Three Airport Facilities, July 2016 to June 2017 ................................. 22Figure 12. Net energy metering with Solar PV ........................................................................................................... 23Figure 13. Ownership and Financing .......................................................................................................................... 29Figure 14. Top Ten States (in yellow) in Solar Project Development Capacity Through 2016 .................................... 33

Tables

Table 1. Potential Solar Project Sites .......................................................................................................................... 13Table 2. Levels of Glare and Compliance with FAA Policy .......................................................................................... 14Table 3. Preferred Design for each of the Solar Project Sites ..................................................................................... 17Table 4. GlareGauge Modeling Results for the Proposed Solar Project Site Locations* ............................................ 18Table 5. Electricity Account Cost Breakdown (August 2016 – July 2017) ................................................................... 24Table 6. Electricity Generation in kWh from Potential Solar Project Sites Identified at Eugene Airport ................... 25Table 7. Economics of a Third Party Owned Solar Project at Site D ........................................................................... 31Table 8. Solar Projects Receiving Funding Under the Solar Development Incentive .................................................. 34

Introduction


1

1 Introduction

The Eugene Airport is undertaking a Master Plan update in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular 150-5070-6B, Airport Master Plans. As part of the Master Plan, the Airport is interested in the feasibility of installing solar photovoltaic (PV) projects at EUG to generate green power and provide financial benefit in the terms of revenue generation and/or cost savings. To provide information for its decision-making process, HMMH prepared a Solar Feasibility Study, which will serve as a planning tool to evaluate solar PV options and determine how to proceed with solar deployment on Airport property.

HMMH’s scope of work associated with completing the Solar Feasibility Study is organized into five tasks focused on various aspects of evaluating the technical and financial feasibility of Airport solar projects and various development scenarios. The five tasks are as follows:

1. Coordination and Kickoff Meeting;

2. Physical Feasibility;

3. Energy Usage and Economic analysis;

4. Feasibility Ownership Models, Regulatory Review, and Coordination with Local Utility; and

5. Summary Report with Recommendations.

HMMH participated in a project kickoff call with RS&H and the airport. The HMMH team summarized the proposed project, identified information needs, and incorporated the airport comments to make sure that the scope of work is responsive to the airport and planning team’s objectives. Section 2 provides the Physical Constraints Analysis, Section 3 provides the Airport Energy Usage and Economic Analysis, Section 4 provides the Feasible Ownership Models, Regulatory Review, and Coordination with Local Utility, and Section 5 provides a summary of the report and recommendations.

1.1 Solar Background at Airports

There has been widespread adoption of PV energy by airports throughout the U.S. and the world. There are more than 70 PV facilities currently generating electricity at airports in the U.S., as shown in Figure 1.

Introduction


2

Figure 1. Solar Projects at U.S. Airports

Figure 2 shows PV projects at airports across the world.

Figure 2. Solar Projects at Airports Across the World

Airport-located solar facilities are typically either: ground-mounted at underutilized sections of the airfield; building-mounted on roofs of buildings; or canopy-mounted to cover surface parking areas and/or the top deck of parking garages. Some PV facilities are owned by the airport, while others are owned by private companies that lease property from the airport. Figure 3 shows examples of ground-mounted, building-mounted and parking canopy-mounted PV systems at airports.

Introduction


3

Figure 3. Examples of Airport Solar Project Designs

In response to growing interest in deploying PV at U.S. airports, the FAA has issued solar policies and guidance.

In November 2010, the FAA published “Technical Guidance for Evaluating Selected Solar Technologies at Airports”3, which communicated to the aviation industry basic information on solar technology, information on projects deployed at airports in the U.S., and guidance for general siting and FAA oversight responsibility.

In September 2012, the FAA released “Interim Guidance on Land Uses in the Runway Protection Zone [RPZ]”4, which stated that certain unoccupied infrastructure including solar proposed in the RPZ would require an alternatives analysis for review by FAA’s Airports office before proceeding.

In October 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register “Interim Policy on Solar Projects at Airports”5, which specifies FAA standards for glare from solar projects on airport property along with the methodology required to assess potential glare to determine if glare was acceptable.

These policies have minimized potential regulatory risk associated with the review of solar projects providing a clear path to approval, resulting in a continued expansion in the number of solar projects at U.S. airports.

Also, worldwide interest in PV at airports has resulted in United Nations (UN) development of a methodology to match PV electricity produced on concourse rooftops with the power demand from gate electrification equipment. The “UN gate decarbonization method” is a recognized method to attribute PV energy generated at concourses, to decarbonization of aircraft at the gate.6

3 FAA. 2010. Technical Guidance for Evaluating of Selected Solar Technologies on Airports. November 2010. https://www.faa.gov/airports/environmental/policy_guidance/media/airport-solar-guide-print.pdf4 FAA. 2012. Interim Guidance on Land Uses Within a Runway Protection Zone. September 27, 2012. https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/media/interimLandUseRPZGuidance.pdf5 FAA. 2013. Interim Policy, FAA Review of Solar Energy System Projects on Federally-Obligated Airports. October 23, 2013. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/10/23/2013-24729/interim-policy-faa-review-of-solar-energy-system-projects-on-federally-obligated-airports6 UNFCCC. 2016. Clean Development Mechanism, Small-scale Methodology, Solar power for domestic aircraft at-gate operations. AMS-I.M. Version 01.0. Sectoral scope(s): 01 and 07. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Introduction


4


Physical Constraints Analysis


5

2 Physical Constraints Analysis

2.1 Physical Constraints Analysis

The physical constraints analysis evaluates the feasibility of locating solar on airport property based on the physical characteristics of the airport. This analysis does not specifically look at whether the projects are cost-effective to develop. The cost effectiveness of the project is evaluated in Section 3. The primary reason for conducting the physical constraints analysis at the outset of the study is to identify sites that can easily be reevaluated in the future as economic conditions (price of electricity, cost to develop solar) can change rapidly. The four criteria used to identify feasible sites are:

1. Airport Planning

2. Environmental Resources

3. Electrical Infrastructure

4. FAA Interim Solar Policy

2.1.1 Airport Planning

The Airport Layout Plan (ALP) and 2010 Master Plan were reviewed to identify areas of airport property where the non-aeronautical use of solar generation may be acceptable either based on the existing use designations on the ALP or a reasonable update to re-classify an area currently identified as aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use. EUG prepared a Master Plan in 2010 and it is currently being updated. The Master Plan serves as a development guide for the airport’s short- and long-term development strategy. It includes the ALP which shows FAA safety zones, existing airport infrastructure and facilities, and future development such as a terminal expansion and runway extensions. All development on airport property must comply with approved FAA design standards contained in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, Change 1, Airport Design.

Figure 4 shows the location of fundamental FAA safety zones that affect future siting and development including solar. For example, the areas adjacent to the runways identified as Object Free Areas (OFA) cannot accommodate non-aeronautical structures and are excluded from consideration for solar. Likewise, the Runway Safety Area (RSA) is off-limits to non-aeronautical structures. The areas outside of but adjacent to the RSA and within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) may accommodate unoccupied infrastructure like solar but would require that an alternatives analysis be prepared and submitted to the FAA to demonstrate that the facility must be located in the RPZ. It is important to note that the ALP shows the existing and a proposed ultimate runway extension for runway 34L and 34R. Proposed development must be consistent with these future plans to ensure that the airport facilities can be expanded if future aviation activities allow for it.



6

Figure 4. EUG Aviation Safety Zones and Airport Infrastructure



7

Figure 4 also shows radar facilities that are identified on the ALP. An Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR) is located on the west side of the parallel runways. It serves air traffic flying in and out of EUG and has a 1,500-foot radius buffer to prevent potential obstructions. A Very high frequency (VHF) Omni-directional Range (VOR) radar with a 1,000-foot buffer serves air traffic in the region including airports to the south and north of EUG is also located west of the runways. The radar east of the approach end of Runway 16R is the automated surface observing system (ASOS). The ASOS report weather conditions that are occurring at the airport and reports it in real time. Radars are signal communication and processing systems which are impacted when objects obstruct the signal path, typically not an issue for low profile solar projects. FAA Part 77 Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, limits the height of structures near the airport runway, which is often not an issue for solar projects given their limited vertical footprint. Constraints on solar project siting would need to account for Part 77 surfaces if located close to the runways.

The 2010 Master Plan also included Exhibit 5-2, Revenue Generation Property, which identified specific parcels of airport land that may be available for alternative uses. These locations are shown on Figure 5. The typical locations on airport property where solar PV would be consistent with the ALP include large airfield areas isolated or remote from existing aviation facilities, and existing infrastructure (building roofs, surface parking) where solar would be consistent with existing aeronautical supporting uses. With the airport property occupying 2,340 acres of land, there are several potential large airfield solar sites that could be sited around the perimeter of airport property. Solar development could provide an alternative to existing uses of remote lands including farming and livestock leases. Opportunities for solar are greatest in the undeveloped airfield areas.

2.1.2 Environmental Resources

The presence of environmental resources can prohibit development from some sites and make other sites costlier and time consuming to develop. Solar projects are subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and therefore must demonstrate that environmental impacts have been avoided, minimized and mitigated. Environmental resources that are most likely to trigger an extended NEPA review and other federal, state and local environmental reviews include wetlands, endangered species, historic resources, and environmental contamination.

HMMH reviewed desktop information on environmental resources available from various online sources including wetland mapping from the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and data from Oregon and Lane County Geographic Information Systems. Site specific information from a recent wetland survey7 conducted as part of the current Master Plan update process was also reviewed. A review of existing information provided no guidance on potential environmental resource constraints on airport property from endangered species, historic resources, or environmental contamination. As evidenced by the recently conducted wetland survey, there are significant areas on the airport that are identified as wetlands that would restrict any development including that of a solar PV project. The mapped wetlands are shown on Figure 6.

Using the available planning information including 2010 Master Plan, Exhibit 5-2, Revenue Generation Property along with information on wetland resources, HMMH has identified ten (10) solar project sites for further consideration. The sites are shown on Figure 6 with the wetlands to show the constraints.

7 Provided by RS&H via email on September 1, 2016.



8

The sites are mostly larger airfield sites given the large land holdings of the airport (see A-H), but also includes a few smaller sites associated with building infrastructure (see I and J).



9

Figure 5. Aviation Safety Zones with Alternative Revenue Sites



10

Figure 6. Wetland Resources Mapped at EUG

2.1.3 Electrical Infrastructure

Solar projects produce electricity and must be interconnected to the existing infrastructure. The capacity of electrical lines will vary, not unlike our roadway infrastructure, depending on how much



11

electricity is being carried. Large transmission lines are like Interstate Highways that carry large amounts of electricity (at high voltage) from central power plants across long distances. At various points along its path, the large transmission lines distribute electricity to medium voltage lines, which are like state highways, to carry power to specific regions. Finally, low voltage power is delivered along smaller capacity distribution lines to individual homes like the neighborhood streets that they run along. Small solar projects located on airport property may be able to connect directly to buildings served by low voltage lines. Large solar farms must be connected to high or medium voltage lines. Therefore, it is important to look at the existing electrical infrastructure and its proximity to buildings and the airfield to determine the feasibility of connecting the solar project to the existing local electricity network.

EUG provided a detailed GIS layer showing the on-site electrical infrastructure network. HMMH evaluated the feasibility of interconnecting a project of varying sizes to the existing electrical infrastructure network. Information on the capacity of the off-site electrical network was not available and would also need to be confirmed by future parties as the degree of feasibility for some sites relies on this information. Figure 7 shows the location of significant transmission infrastructure (shown in green) near the airport along with the potential project sites. The information provided shows that power to supply the airport comes from a high voltage transmission line that runs along the east side of State Route 99. The connector line branches off and runs west above ground along Airport Road, then has been placed underground through the RPZ for Runway 34R to the airport campus and terminal. No large transmission infrastructure occurs on the west side of the airport, which is consistent with the sparsely developed nature of that area. This would suggest that the sites on the east and south side of the airport may be less expensive to develop compared to other sites on the west side of the airport. Additional work, such as verifying the location and capacity of vaults, transformers and meters, is necessary to confirm existing electrical infrastructure and assess the interconnection feasibility.

Table 1 provides a brief description of each proposed solar PV site location and its characteristics. For planning purposes, a projected nameplate electricity generation capacity has been provided for each site based on the project area as estimated using Google Earth measuring tool. For ground-mounted sites based on standard siting practices, 5 acres of land was assumed necessary to build a 1 megawatt (MW) solar project, and for roof mounted projects, 3 acres of rooftop was used for 1 MW generation.

The environmental and electrical interconnection information utilized in this study is screening level analysis, based on available information without a site review. This information should also be confirmed by any third-party entity looking to develop a site that has been identified.



12

Figure 7. Significant Transmission Infrastructure



13

Table 1. Potential Solar Project Sites

Site Location Area Power Design On-Site or Grid

A Airfield North 8 acres 1.6 MW Ground Grid

B Airfield End of Rwy 16L 2 acres 0.4 MW Ground Grid

C Triangle East of Airport 2 acres 0.4 MW Ground Grid

D Airfield South of Rwy 34R 8 acres 1.6 MW Ground Grid

E Airfield South 6 acres 1.2 MW Ground Grid

F Airfield West 14 acres 2.8 MW Ground Grid

G Airfield Northwest 14 acres 2.8 MW Ground Grid

H Near South Hangars 11 acres 2.2 MW Ground Grid

I Terminal Roof 0.9 acres 0.3 MW Rooftop On-Site

J Surface Parking 3 acres 0.6 MW Canopy On-Site

2.1.4 Glare Standards

The last step in screening out viable sites is to evaluate each proposed site for compliance with the glare standards contained in the FAA’s Interim Solar Policy. HMMH used the FAA’s Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Tool (SGHAT), now referred to as GlareGauge on each project site to determine if the site and a specific design would comply with the FAA’s ocular hazard standard.

The FAA’s Interim Solar Policy published in the Federal Register on October 23, 2013 describes the methodology for evaluating potential glare impacts to sensitive airport receptors and the standards the FAA uses to determine if the glare will result in a significant impact. The FAA requires the use of SGHAT or a similar modeling tool to evaluate glare from the proposed project site and the potential impact on existing and future sensitive receptors associated with the Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) and aircraft on final approach to all airport runways. The policy also includes the FAA’s ocular hazard standard, which states that the FAA will object to any project that produces glare on the ATCT, as well as projects that produce a potential for a temporary after-image (yellow glare recorded by the model) or potential for permanent eye damage (red glare recorded by the model) on aircraft.

The glare modeling performed for each site is accurate for the design parameters that have been inserted into GlareGauge, formerly SGHAT which was used for evaluating glare as required by the FAA. Any proponent will need to replicate the modeling results and submit them to the FAA to obtain formal approval of the project under FAR Part 77 before pursuing construction.

2.1.4.1 FAA Jurisdiction and Standards for Measuring Ocular Impact

The FAA’s Interim Policy for Solar Projects clarifies the FAA’s jurisdiction in reviewing solar projects and the standards it uses to determine if a project will result in a negative glare impact affecting airspace safety.

An airport must initiate FAA review and obtain approval of solar energy facilities proposed on airport property as directed by 49 U.S.C. 47107(a)(16) and Sponsor Grant Assurance 29, ‘‘Airport Layout Plan.’’ The airport must notify the FAA of its intent to construct any solar installation by filing FAA Form 7460–1, ‘‘Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration’’ under 14 CFR Part 77 for a Non-Rulemaking case (NRA). The FAA also clarified that it does not have jurisdiction to regulate potential glare from projects



14

located on non-airport land. However, as stated in the Policy, “the FAA urges proponents of off-airport solar-installations to voluntarily implement the provisions in this policy.”

The Policy also describes the standards for measuring ocular impact:

To obtain FAA approval and a “no objection” to a Notice of Proposed Construction Form 7460-1, the airport sponsor will be required to demonstrate that the proposed solar energy system meets the following standards: (1) no potential for glint or glare in the existing or planned Air Traffic Control Tower cab, and (2) no potential for glare or “low potential for after-image” (shown in green) along the final approach path.

As listed in Table 2, two sensitive receptors – the ATCT cab and aircraft on approach – must be evaluated for glare and there is a different standard for each receptor. Any glare recorded on the ATCT is not compliant with FAA Policy and the FAA will object to the project on the basis of glare. Measurement of either no glare or low potential for after-image or “Green” is acceptable for aircraft on final approach but greater levels (indicated in yellow and red) will be also be objected to by the FAA.

Table 2. Levels of Glare and Compliance with FAA Policy

Airport Sensitive Receptor

Model Recorded Level of Glare Model Color Result Does the result comply

with FAA Policy?

ATCT Cab No glare None Yes

Low Potential for After-Image Green No

Potential for After-Image Yellow No

Potential for Permanent Eye Damage Red No

Aircraft on approach No glare None Yes

Low Potential for After-Image Green Yes

Potential for After-Image Yellow No

Potential for Permanent Eye Damage Red No

2.1.4.2 Modeling Methodology

As discussed above, the FAA Solar Policy provides guidance on the method for conducting the evaluation (i.e. SGHAT or an approved alternative), airport sensitive receptors that must be evaluated, and the standards for determining an ocular impact. For the proposed project, GlareGauge was used to assess individually the potential glare impact of each proposed project location on airport sensitive receptors at EUG. The airport sensitive receptors analyzed were controllers in the ATCT and pilots on final descent to each runway end. No site-specific analysis of General Aviation operations has been conducted but such work could be if requested.

In preparing for the model runs, the footprint of each project array was outlined on the model’s interactive google map and input details on the project design including azimuth angle and tilt angle as described below in the design considerations. The HMMH team then proceeded to evaluate specific airport sensitive receptors.

For the ATCT, the HMMH team located the tower on the model’s aerial map and input the height of the observer. RS&H provided the cab eye level height of 85 feet above ground level.

For the pilot analysis, the HMMH team selected the runway threshold with the flightpath tool and a second point away from the runway to represent the direction of the flight path. The model then



15

automatically identifies the location and height above ground of the flight path based on a 3-degree glide slope out two miles from the threshold and determines if the pilot along the flight path would be exposed to glare. Adjustments were made to the inputs for the pilot’s view to screen out any results that are beyond view. The flight path analyzed by the model for each runway are shown in Figure 8 as well as the ATCT, represented by a red star.

2.1.4.3 Design Considerations

Design considerations generally vary for different types of sites with an overall preference for the solar panels being tilted toward and facing south. The southern orientation is referred to as the azimuth and is measured based on a compass heading with south being 180° (and north being 0°). Project design, particularly related to azimuth and tilt angle, affect the potential for glare and need to be identified prior to assessing compliance with the FAA’s Solar Policy.

Projects mounted on poles on the ground (i.e. ground-mounted designs) have the greatest flexibility in siting and design and will customarily have an azimuth of 180° and a tilt angle of 30° at the latitude of EUG. Projects located over surface parking will include a canopy structure that is aligned to the parking design such that vehicles can park under the structures. Canopies also have a lower tilt angle to maximize shading benefits to vehicles and limit engineering stress from wind loads with tilt angles being 7° or less. Figure 9 shows a cross-sectional view of such a typical canopy structure. Panels on building rooftops will typically need to conform to the roof design with panels on flat roofs being tilted ~5° to permit drainage and minimizing wind loads, while projects on slope roofs are fastened directly to the roof. The preferred design characteristics for ground-mounted, canopy, and building-mounted sites are shown in Table 3.

Ground-mounted solar projects can also be designed with tracking systems which adjust the panel’s position to follow the sun throughout the day and vary with the seasons as opposed to fixed panels that do not move. Tracking systems maximize solar access and electricity generation but are also costlier to build, operate and maintain. For the purposes of this analysis, tracking systems were not assessed though they could easily be evaluated in the future once a prospective site is selected for a tracking system.



16

Figure 8. ATCT and Pilot Observation Points Assessed For Glare



17

Figure 9. Cross-section of a Typical Solar Canopy Structure

Table 3. Preferred Design for each of the Solar Project Sites

Mounting System Orientation Tilt Angle Panel Height (AGL)

Fixed Ground-mounted 180° 30° 10 feet

Fixed Canopy Dependent on parking

orientation 7° 18 feet

Fixed Building-mounted Dependent on building roof

orientation

Either directly attached to a sloped roof or tilted 5° off a

flat roof

No additional structure, use roof height

For the solar module surface material, “smooth glass without ARC” (anti-reflective coating) was used to provide the installer with maximum flexibility in selecting a solar module. However, if excessive glare results were generated, the surface characteristics could be changed to other premium material options that could mitigate glare.

In conducting the glare modeling, the HMMH team generally started with a large project footprint and then decreased the size as needed if glare did not meet FAA standards (larger surface areas produce higher intensity glare). The HMMH team then imported the appropriate preferred design for the site (ground-mounted sites 30° tilt facing 180°; canopies 7° tilt oriented closest to due south depending on orientation of the parking lot). If non-compliant glare was detected for the preferred design, the HMMH team input alternative design components to identify a design that would comply. As the tilt angle has only a slight effect on glare results, changes were primarily made to the azimuth followed at times by slight adjustments to the tilt angle. The HMMH team could also use, if necessary, the electricity estimate calculator in GlareGauge to record electricity production estimates and determine the percent of electricity lost due to the alternative compliant design.

2.1.4.4 Results

The GlareGauge modeling results demonstrate that each of the 10 proposed solar PV project sites reviewed is compatible with the FAA’s Interim Solar Policy and the associated ocular hazard standard.



18

All sites complied using the preferred design except for Site F which initially recorded glare on the ATCT. The HMMH team ran the site optimization tool in GlareGauge to identify a design that would comply with FAA standards. The design closest to the preferred design that would comply is an azimuth of 200° and a tilt angle of 30°. None of the other project sites cast any glare on the ATCT and all recorded either no glare or “low potential for a temporary after-image” noted by the color “green”, which is of a low level in terms of intensity and is typical of what pilots might experience when flying.

From a planning perspective, glare impacts most commonly occur when project sites are located east and west of the ATCT and flight paths. This is because a glare can be seen when the sun is low on the horizon (in the morning and the evening) and not when it is high in the sky (midday). In part because EUG is a north-south oriented airport, the solar project sites are generally not located east or west of either the ATCT or runway approach paths. The one site that recorded glare, Site F, is located west of the ATCT.

Table 4 presents the glare results by project site (A through J) for the ATCT and pilot observation points associated with each runway. All the model output reports are included for each site in the appropriately named Appendix (A through C).

2.2 Conclusions and Next Steps

Based on the available information, HMMH has identified ten (10) distinct sites where solar PV projects could physically be developed at Eugene Airport. These sites are compatible and consistent with existing and future airport uses including meeting the FAA’s ocular hazard standard associated with glare.

The next step is to evaluate the effect of various business structures on project cost effectiveness and the ability of the airport to meet its objectives for project development. This will be accomplished by evaluating airport owned and third party owned project types as well as distributed generation and utility scale project interconnections. This level of analysis will allow EUG to identify one or more sites to pursue and, after the Master Plan Update and solar feasibility study are complete, prepare an implementation and financing plan for the project.

Table 4. GlareGauge Modeling Results for the Proposed Solar Project Site Locations*

Site Azimuth/Tilt ATCT Rwy 16R Rwy 16L Rwy 34R Rwy 34L Comply?

A – Airfield North 180° / 30° -- -- -- Green Green Yes

B – North of 16L 180° / 30° -- -- -- -- -- Yes

C – Triangle to East 180° / 30° -- -- -- -- Green Yes

D – South of Rwy 34R 180° / 30° -- Green -- -- Green Yes

E – Airfield South 180° / 30° -- -- -- -- -- Yes

F – Airfield West 200° / 30° -- -- -- -- Green Yes

G – Airfield Northwest

180° / 30° -- -- -- -- -- Yes

H – Below South Hangars

180° / 30° -- -- -- -- -- Yes

I – Terminal Roof 208° / 5° -- -- -- -- -- Yes

J – Surface Parking 208° / 7° -- -- -- Green -- Yes

* These results are evaluated in comparison to the ocular hazard standards listed in Table 2.



19


Airport Energy Usage and Economic Analysis


21

3 Airport Energy Usage and Economic Analysis

The energy usage and economic analysis evaluated information on existing electricity usage and costs, solar electricity production, and energy policies and incentives. The analysis identified some of the fundamental issues associated with the financial feasibility of individual solar projects. The information presented in this section will be used in Section 4, to develop a cost estimate for projects, ownership models, and implementation process. The three criteria used to generate data for evaluating financial feasibility are:

1. Electricity usage and costs

2. Solar electricity production

3. Energy policies and incentives

As an example, the HMMH team used this information to present a generic cost assessment for a solar PV project on the roof of the Airport Terminal building (see Section 3.5.1).

3.1 Electricity Usage and Costs

Existing electricity usage and costs can be compared to future electricity usage and cost anticipated from a solar facility at Eugene Airport to determine the effectiveness of a solar project. A solar facility may generate electricity directly consumed on-site and decrease the amount of electricity purchased from a utility provider. In such a case, the savings in electricity are added up annually to calculate the simple payback, that is, how long it takes to save an amount and value of electricity equal to the cost of the investment. The electricity may also be sold to an off-site user which could provide the Airport with an additional revenue source. For this case, the revenue accrued is compared to the investment cost to determine the cost-effectiveness of the project.

HMMH obtained one year (i.e. 12 consecutive months) of electricity bills for EUG from RS&H. Electricity service to EUG is provided by EWEB. The bills provide monthly information on electricity usage and costs from July 2016 to June 2017 for three Airport facilities: Airport Terminal building (1), Airport Operations Center (2), and Airport Rescue and Firefighting Facility (ARFF) building (3) with locations shown in Figure 10.



22

Figure 10. Location of Three Airport Facilities with Electrical Bills

Each bill reports the amount of electricity consumed in kilowatt hours (kWh), the cost of the electricity, and fixed costs associated with utility service including demand charges and administrative costs. This information provides a snapshot of the electricity demand on a monthly basis for each building. The amount of electricity consumed monthly by each facility from July 2016 to June 2017 is shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11. Electricity Consumed by Month at Three Airport Facilities, July 2016 to June 2017



23

As seen in Figure 11, the Airport Terminal consumes most of the electricity at the Airport. While the amount of electricity consumed by each building varies by month, there appears to be no clear pattern of peak use during the year considered. The time of day use of electricity was not available to determine if electricity is predominantly consumed during daylight hours when the solar system would be generating power. However, since the Airport facilities remain connected to the utility grid even after solar projects are installed, it is assumed that “net energy metering” will be in effect where the Airport will consume the solar electricity when needed, draw electricity from the electric grid when solar electricity is insufficient, and export surplus solar electricity back to the grid when on-site generation is greater than demand. This situation is illustrated in Figure 12.

Figure 12. Net energy metering with Solar PV

As stated above, the electricity bill from EWEB breaks the cost down into finer segments. The energy cost is the price for electricity and is what would be replaced by an on-site solar system. However, there are other bill charges that are fixed based on EWEB’s need to be prepared to provide electricity when the solar system is not operational. The demand charge is based on the maximum amount of electricity that the facility may require at any single time during the month. Even if solar electricity supplied the required electricity during sunny days, the Airport facility will still require electricity from the grid at night and on cloudy days. EWEB and other utilities typically impose a monthly demand charge based on the expected peak amount of electricity that may be required based on the Airport facility’s demand. The demand charge remains unchanged even after the solar system is installed. EWEB’s demand charge is $7.43 per kW and the amount of kW is determined by the monthly peak usage at any one time.

EWEB also includes a fixed charge for reactive power expressed in kVAR or one thousand VAR (voltage-ampere reactive). This charge covers additional infrastructure costs associated with the delivery of total power in kilo-volt amperes (kVA) to the Airport facility, which is comprised of working power (kW) and the reactive power (kVAR). EWEB’s reactive power charge is $0.28 per kVAR monthly. Finally, EWEB includes an administrative charge on all accounts of the same type, irrespective of variations in power consumed. EWEB’s monthly administration charge to the airport is $59.30 per account. Table 5 presents the total costs for each charge, the rate of charge, and the percent of total for each charge for the three Airport accounts.



24

Table 5. Electricity Account Cost Breakdown (August 2016 – July 2017)

Account Electricity Consumed

(kWh) Percent of Bill

Demand (or Peak) Charge

(kW) Percent of Bill

Reactive Power

(KVAR)* Percent of Bill

Administrative Charge Percent

Airport Terminal

3,211,080 81.0% 6,109.20 18.4% 2,851 0.3% 0.3%

Airport Operations Center

121,520 68.3% 377.2 25.3% NA NA 6.4%

ARFF 54,640 57.4% 244.0 30.6% NA NA 12.0%

*Reactive Power charge is not applied to smaller commercial accounts including the Hangar and ARFF at the Airport

Where the energy charge is a higher percent of the bill, the customer may be able to lower its monthly electricity bill more significantly by generating power on-site. For the Airport accounts, the energy charge at the Airport Terminal is 81 percent of the bill and therefore, if a solar system was installed and replaced the existing energy charge, each bill would be reduced by approximately 81 percent. To determine the simple payback for investing in the solar system, the savings are added together, and the payback is arrived once the savings total equals the cost of the solar system. An analysis of predicted simple payback is provided below in Section 3.5.

3.2 Solar Electricity Production

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) provides a simple online tool for estimating the amount of electricity that may be produced by a particular solar project from a specific project location. This tool is referred to as the PVWatts Calculator. The HMMH team used the PVWatts Calculator to estimate the amount of electricity that would be produced annually from the potential solar project site locations identified in Section 2 and listed in Table 1.

PVWatts uses information from the nearest weather station to calculate the expected solar generation based on typical weather conditions. The user can draw the solar project footprint in the interactive map in PVWatts and it will generate an estimated nameplate system capacity in kW and monthly electricity generation in kWh. This can then be used to compare to existing electricity costs to determine simple payback considering available federal, state, and local incentives.

The amount of solar electricity produced by each potential solar project site varies based on project size and design characteristics. The optimal orientation to maximize electricity generation is 180° (or with panels tilted towards due south). For design reasons, a few solar project sites, as shown in Table 4, would not be oriented at 180° and their solar electricity generation efficiency is comparatively degraded. Project Site F would need to be oriented toward the southwest at 200° to avoid potential glare impacts on the ATCT. Also Sites I (Airport Terminal Roof) and J (Airport Surface Parking area) would be best laid out in accordance with the existing orientation of the building and parking lot, which results in solar panels oriented to the southwest at 208°. The PVWatts Calculator results for these sites incorporate these final design considerations. Table 6 lists the predicted solar power generation in kWh from each site on an annual basis. It also shows how much of the airport’s total power needs the site would supply as a percentage.



25

Table 6. Electricity Generation in kWh from Potential Solar Project Sites Identified at Eugene Airport

Site Location Orientation/Tilt Power Generated

(kWh) % of Airport Total1

A Airfield North 180° / 30° 4,067,550 120.1%

B Airfield End of Rwy 16L 180° / 30° 2,163,443 63.9%

C Triangle East of Airport 180° / 30° 1,683,931 49.7%

D Airfield South of Rwy 34R 180° / 30° 7,798,774 230.2%

E Airfield South 180° / 30° 3,338,158 98.6%

F Airfield West 200° / 30° 10,518,377 310.5%

G Airfield Northwest 180° / 30° 8,819,510 260.4%

H Near South Hangars 180° / 30° 7,160,677 211.4%

I Airport Terminal Roof 208° / 5° 669,395 19.8%

J Airport Surface Parking 208° / 7° 950,781 28.1%

Notes: 1. Percent of airport total assumes the total of the three accounts, Airport Terminal, Airport Operations Center, and the

ARFF.

Table 6 shows several of the potential solar project sites can meet the electricity demand of the Airport based on the needs of the three Airport accounts. Solar project sizes larger than the Airport’s electricity demand are only viable if an off-site electricity consumer were identified to purchase the surplus electricity at a price that is economical to the Airport. Small solar project sites such as Sites I and J, could easily supply a portion of the Airport Terminal’s overall demand and ensure that the Airport could accrue the full cost savings from those projects. Furthermore, the surface parking solar project (Site J) could be expanded to supply more of the Airport Terminal’s on-site needs. If such a project were considered, it would be important to assess the Airport Terminal’s annual load during the daytime to better match Airport Terminal electricity consumption with periods when the solar facility is producing electricity.

3.3 Solar Policies and Incentives

Given its environmental benefits when compared to traditional fossil fuel-powered electricity, federal, state, and local governments have developed public policies and incentives to increase the development of solar power and other renewable energy sources. These incentives typically lower the cost to develop solar projects through grants, tax incentives, and streamlining of approval processes. This section summarizes some of the policies and incentives, and their availability to enhance the cost-effectiveness of a solar project at EUG.

Tax Credits: The Investment Tax Credit (ITC) allows developers of solar projects to claim a tax credit of 30 percent of the total solar project cost. The program is authorized by Congress and managed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS). As a tax credit, it can only be used by a tax paying entity and therefore, is not applicable to government developed and owned projects. Since the ITC is not available to government projects (i.e. EUG), many airport solar projects are developed through a lease arrangement between the airport and a private developer so that the developer can monetize the tax credit, reduce the cost to develop, and use that cost savings to deliver less expensive electricity for purchase by the airport. In addition to the ITC, there are also several other IRS-administered tax incentives, including accelerated depreciation that allow the owner of the solar facility to reduce its tax payments in the early years of the solar project operation further improving the cost effectiveness of the



26

solar electricity produced by the facility. There may also be similar types of tax credits available at the state and local levels of government that may be applied to reduce the cost to develop solar projects. The Federal ITC incentive is currently available to all solar projects in development regardless of location.

The value of the ITC is currently 30 percent of solar project costs for all solar projects that commence construction prior to December 31, 2019. For the following year, 2020, the tax credit will reduce down to 26 percent, and then down to 22 percent in 2021. After December 31, 2021, the tax credit will reduce down to 10 percent and remain at 10 percent in the future.

Net Energy Metering Policy – EWEB: As introduced above, net energy metering occurs when excess electricity is generated at the site of a facility connected to the electricity-grid. As it is possible that the facility generates electricity greater than being consumed on-site, the electrical infrastructure must be designed to allow for electricity to be exported to the grid and that local utility must accept the electricity under federal energy laws. However, it is left to individual states to determine how much the utility receiving the electricity must pay the exporter for the surplus energy. States that are considering policy measures to enhance the cost-effectiveness of renewable energy may require that the utility pays the exporter a higher price. States that are concerned that utilities may be assuming too much cost to subsidize renewable energy may require the utility to pay the lower wholesale price of the power, also typically represented by the energy costs and not the fixed costs described in the airport’s bill as summarized in Section 3.1. Net energy metering policies may include additional caps on the amount of incentive including a minimum amount of a solar project’s energy being consumed on-site to limit oversizing solar projects or a cap on the total amount of net metering payment that may be paid out by the program.

The EWEB offers net metering for customers with renewable energy generation systems with an installed capacity of 25 kW or less. Eligible systems use solar power, wind power, fuel cells, hydroelectric power, landfill gas, digester gas, waste, dedicated energy crops, or certain biomass to generate electricity. Systems should be sized to primarily offset the customer's energy usage at the site. Excess generation is compensated at a rate of $0.0311/kWh. Credits are applied to the full EWEB bill, including amounts for water and waste water service. Should excess generation credits be in excess of a total bill, the credits would carry over month-to-month with no expiration.

Renewable Portfolio Standards: Many states have enacted standards or goals for the purchase of renewable energy referred to as Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to create market demand and increase cost-effectiveness. The RPS is typically established by an act of the state legislature. The RPS is typically expressed as a percentage of electricity that will be met by a renewable supply. The RPS programs typically set a future goal and include annual interim goals. Utilities that supply electricity must procure renewable energy to meet the goals on an annual basis or pay a compliance payment to a renewable energy fund that is more expensive than if it had developed a renewable energy project or purchased the energy from a developer. As the utility seeks to meet the annual requirements, it will look to build or acquire renewable energy sustaining a market demand and supporting an in-state industry.

The Oregon Renewable Energy Act (Act) enacted in 2007 created the state’s RPS. The purpose of the RPS is to decrease Oregon utilities reliance on fossil fuels for electric generation and increase their use of renewable energy sources. The Act established standards for Oregon’s electric utilities requiring that a percentage of their annual sales must come from qualifying renewable resources beginning in 2011. As a large utility, defined as providing 3 percent or more of the State’s electricity, EWEB must deliver 20 percent of all its electricity as renewable by 2020, 25 percent by 2025 and 50 percent by 2040. EWEB



27

already meets its goals due to its procurement of hydroelectric power from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and its legacy hydro generation. Therefore, EWEB interprets the exemptions to mean EWEB does not have any current RPS compliance obligations.

Federal Energy Bonds: The Clean Renewable Energy Bond (CREB) is a qualified tax credit bond authorized by the Energy Tax Incentive Act of 2005 and allocated under Section 54c of the Internal Revenue Code. It allows solar projects to be financed and for the federal government to pay the interest after solar project completion. Bonds are subsidized by the U.S. Treasury Department, which provides a credit of 70 percent of the full allowable interest rate. The amount of funding available through CREBs changes annually, based on congressional allocation. These funds require the approved solar project sponsor to issue bonds for the solar project.

Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds (QECB) are qualified tax credit bonds that enable state or local governments to borrow money at attractive rates to fund energy conservation projects. Bonds are subsidized by the U.S Treasury Department, which provides a credit of 70 percent of the full allowable interest rate. Funding through QECBs is dependent on congressional allocation, and can change annually. For example, Congress allocated $3.2 billion for 2015. Based on the guidance provided by the U.S. Department of Energy, both bond programs have the same term limits, bond rates, and assurances. These are as follows:

Coupon rates are negotiated with the buyer like any other bond program.

The bond term limits are set by the U.S. Treasury Department on a monthly basis. Also, the U.S. Treasury Department has a maximum coupon rate that is eligible for tax credit. This is called the tax credit rate and is also set on a monthly basis (to see the current prevailing rates go to https://www.treasurydirect.gov/GA-SL/SLGS/selectQTCDate.htm).

Issuer sells taxable bonds and pays a taxable coupon semi-annually to the investor.

All bond proceeds, generally must be spent within 3 years or used to redeem bonds at the end of that 3-year period. Issuers must have a binding commitment with a third party to spend at least 10 percent of the bond proceeds within 6 months of the issuance date.

Only 2 percent of the bond proceeds can be used toward cost of issuance. If issuance costs are higher, the balance of these costs must be funded from other sources.

Davis-Bacon prevailing wage laws do not apply to issuer employees but do apply to contracted labor.

State Bonds: The Oregon State Energy Loan Program (SELP) was created in 1981 after voters approved a constitutional amendment authorizing the sale of bonds to finance small-scale, local energy projects and is administered by the Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE). The program offers low-interest loans for solar project as well as other renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. Loans are available to individuals, businesses, schools, cities, counties, special districts, state and federal agencies, public corporations, cooperatives, tribes, and non-profits. School districts receive special rates. Though there is no legal maximum loan, the size of loans generally ranges from $20,000 to $20 million. Terms vary, but are generally set to match the term of the bonds that funded the loans. Loan terms may not exceed solar project life. Loan fees are set based on the size of the loan and range from 1 to 2 percent of the loan amount requested.

Renewable Energy Development Grants: The ODOE provides grants for renewable energy production systems. Eligible technologies include renewable energy production systems that use biomass, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, wind, landfill gas, biogas or wave, tidal or ocean thermal energy technology to produce electrical energy. The applicant can be a trade, business, or rental property owner with a



28

business site in Oregon, or is an Oregon nonprofit organization, tribe or public entity, such as the Airport. It can be the owner, contract purchaser, or lessee of the system at the time of installation or construction of the proposed solar system. Grants may not exceed 35 percent of the cost of the project and may not exceed $250,000 per system. In 2016, the ODOE received 35 applications and awarded 13 grants. Five of the 13 grants included solar PV projects in the large category (over 300 kW) and each received a grant of $175,000. While the funds are competitive, it seems reasonable that EUG could submit a competitive grant proposal for funding through the ODOE in the future.

FAA Energy Efficiency AIP Grants: Section 512 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 added a program that encouraged public-use airport sponsors to assess energy requirements in order to accelerate the adoption of energy-efficient airport power sources. The legislation made these specific types of projects eligible for the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) including energy efficiency and renewable energy generation. Energy efficiency projects include those relating to heating and cooling, base load, back-up power and power for on-road airport vehicles and ground support equipment. Renewable energy includes solar, wind, and geothermal. Under Section 512, the Secretary of Transportation may award grants to perform Energy Assessments. Such Energy Assessments must be completed before the FAA issues a grant to fund other, specific projects that the legislation made AIP eligible. The FAA has recently prepared Draft Guidance on Increasing the Energy Efficiency of Airport Power Sources 2017, which includes information on energy assessments/audits and energy efficiency/renewable energy projects. The most recent draft guidance is included in the FAA Order 5100.38, the Airport Improvement Program Handbook. EUG is eligible for Section 512 funding. It would propose a solar project consistent with the typical process for AIP funding of traditional aviation improvements.

3.4 Development and Ownership Options – Airport-Owned vs Third-Party Owned

Solar projects can be sized to deliver power for either on-site use, or to the larger electricity grid for off-site use. On-site projects are typically smaller and are owned by the Airport. Third-party projects are often owned by a private developer, transferring the electricity off-site or selling the electricity through a long-term power contract or a power purchase agreement (PPA). An illustration of the airport- and third-party-owned and financed models is shown in Figure 13.



29

Figure 13. Ownership and Financing

3.4.1 Airport-Owned with On-Site Power Use

For the on-site example, the size of the solar facility is constrained by the amount of electricity demand on-site. For EUG, the solar project would need to be sized to generate no more than about 3.3m kWh. If it produces more electricity than it can consume, EWEB will not compensate the airport for that surplus electricity since the proposed projects are greater than 25kW (see above), thereby providing no economic value to EUG for a larger project.

Typically, on-site solar projects will be owned by the airport. Third-party ownership is not excluded; however, it is typically less economical for the third-party because of the relatively small system size. The power produced by the system is consumed on-site and the airport purchases less electricity from the electric utility producing a costs savings. The cost and benefits are assessed through the installed cost of the solar system along with the annual savings of avoiding purchases from the utility. A simple payback for such a solar system is described in Section 3.5.

In this instance, the Airport owns and operates the solar facility. The Airport holds all the developmental and operational risk associated with the solar project, but also accrues all of the benefits. It can utilize grants and bonds to help pay for the solar project. It can work with consulting engineers to prepare a design/build bid package and select an Engineering Procurement and Construction (EPC) Contractor to design, build, and commission the solar system. Once the solar system is constructed, it will likely execute an operations and maintenance contract for preventative and corrective maintenance while also training on-site personnel to oversee the solar system.



30

3.4.2 Third-Party Owned with Off-Site Use

In the third-party example, the airport will execute a lease agreement with a private developer to finance, build, own, and operate the solar facility. One of the main economic drivers is the ability of the private developer to monetize the Federal Investment Tax Credit. By decreasing the project costs, the developer can sell the electricity at a lower price and pass some of that savings on to the airport as the host, either through a lease agreement or by selling the airport less expensive electricity than it currently purchases from the utility. The private developer can also take advantage of other tax-related incentives including accelerated depreciation, and local and state real estate tax rebates.

Because the private developer is the financier, owner, and operator, it assumes more of the risk and therefore, the third-party ownership model is a low risk option for the airport. If the airport secures a lease agreement with the solar developer, it should expect lease payments that are comparable to agricultural leases based on HMMH’s experience with other airports. If the airport can negotiate a PPA price to buy some or all of the electricity, its primary risk is related to the uncertain future price of electricity. The PPA will lock the airport into paying a future price which may be economical at present, but could look high in the future if regional electricity prices drop.

3.5 Simple Payback Analysis

A simple payback analysis can readily be conducted on any solar project constructed at EUG that supplies power to an on-site facility and reduces the electricity consumed on-site. The inputs to the simple payback are (1) existing and future cost of energy; (2) installed cost of solar PV system; and (3) amount of power generated by the solar system over time. This analysis can be applied to a solar project owned by the airport and sized to accommodate power needs on-site or for a larger project owned by a third-party developer that exports power off-site for purchase from the utility grid (either by the Airport, the utility, or another large consumer of electricity).

3.5.1 On-Site Use - Airport-Owned

For the on-site example where the Airport owns the system, it is assumed a commercial scale solar project, defined by NREL as between 200 kW and 2 megawatt (MW), generating electricity consumed entirely by the electricity demand at the Airport Terminal. The following inputs are used to develop the simple payback:

Cost of energy at the terminal = $0.0624 / kWh (source: Airport electricity bill from EWEB) escalating annually in price by 3 percent (rate of inflation)

Installed cost of the solar PV system = $1.85 / Wdc (Watts in direct current basis) (source: NREL Benchmark Report Q1 2017)

System efficiency = 14 percent of nameplate capacity in Year 1; panel output decreases by 0.5 percent annually

The analysis applied these assumptions to analyze the cost and potential payback for a 604-kW solar project on the roof of the terminal building. Such a solar project would supply approximately 21 percent of the Airport Terminal’s s annual electricity needs. It is estimated that the installed cost of this solar project is $1,117,585. There are three potential Airport-owned development scenarios:



31

1. Airport constructs the solar project without any incentives using a low to no interest loan (either federal or state as described above) for the full installed cost of $1,117,585.

Simple Payback = < 39 years

2. Airport is awarded a $175,000 Renewable Energy Development Grant from the ODOE (the amount selected is comparable to other similar grants awarded under the program in 2017). The installed project cost is reduced to $942,585.

Simple Payback = 31 Years

3. The Airport is awarded an AIP Grant under FAA Energy Efficiency Program which provides 90 percent federal funding. The local share of the project is $111,759.

Simple Payback on Local Share = < 3 years

3.5.2 Off-Site Use - Third-Party Developer

For the off-site use where the solar system is owned by a third- party and the electricity is exported offsite, the basic financial calculations are the same. However, tax credits and developer profit must also be factored into the calculations. The developer will also seek to invest in a larger solar project to maximize profit. For this example, Site D has been used given its close proximity to the existing electrical infrastructure and relative size. The primary financial factors are the same except the installed cost used is for the utility-scale sized project:

Cost of energy at the terminal = $0.0624 / kWh (source: Airport electricity bill from EWEB) escalating annually in price by 3 percent (rate of inflation).

Installed cost of the solar PV system = $1.03 / Wdc (source: NREL Benchmark Report Q1 2017).

System efficiency = 14 percent of nameplate capacity in Year 1; panel output decreases by 0.5 percent annually.

Investor rate of return = 10 percent.

The analysis applied these assumptions to analyzing the cost and potential payback for a 6.63-MW solar project at Site D. Such a project would supply more than 2.5 times the power used by the Airport from the three EWEB accounts. It is estimated that the installed cost of this project is $6,625,372. Table 7 presents the economics of a third-party owned solar project at Site D.

Table 7. Economics of a Third Party Owned Solar Project at Site D

Account Administrative Charge Percent

Installed Cost $6,625,372

Debt Service (5%) in Year 1 $165,634

Investor Return (10%) in Year 1 $331,669

Project Cost after 30% ITC $4,985,592

Payback at Existing Energy Cost < 12 years

Payback with a REC of $0.015 / kWh < 10 years

The Airport would participate financially in the third-party project in one of two ways. It could receive an annual lease payment from the development. The value of the lease payment would be similar to an agricultural lease, which is $55/farmable acre as provided by EUG for this solar feasibility study. For Site D, which is approximately 8 acres, the lease payment would be $440 per year, though it is possible that



32

the Airport could obtain a higher lease payment. Alternatively, the Airport could enter into a PPA and procure all of the electricity generated from the solar project. To make it economical to do so, the Airport may reasonably expect to receive a 10-25 percent discount on its electricity over existing rates. When considering the most recent year of energy bills, such an arrangement could save the Airport between $26,000 and $66,000 per year.

3.6 Conclusions and Next Steps

In this section, the HMMH team reviewed the primary energy and economic issues associated with developing solar PV projects at EUG. The existing cost of electricity is compared to the cost to build an Airport-owned solar project using an example of a rooftop facility on the Airport Terminal. Assuming all of the solar power is consumed at the Airport Terminal, a simple payback is presented with no economic incentives, and with three different types of economic incentives. Other smaller projects at the Airport’s Operations Center and the ARFF could be similarly analyzed, but are likely to have a similar economic result. The HMMH team also looked at the simple economics of a utility-scale solar project developed by a third-party at Site D and the options for the Airport to participate financially in such a project.

In Section 4, the HMMH team will describe the logistics of pursuing these two types of projects to aid the Airport in further investigating these options.

Feasibility Ownership Models, Regulatory Review, and Coordination with Local Utility


33

4 Feasibility Ownership Models, Regulatory Review, and Coordination with Local Utility

4.1 The Plan for Implementation

Section 3 presented two primary options for pursuing solar:



The economics of these projects for the airport are not strong at this time primarily due to a lack of state financial incentives which make solar power comparatively expensive to existing power as illustrated by the 31-39 year payback period. However, the planning steps taken by the Airport to identify sites and evaluate ownership options are important as part of long-term planning because the economics of energy can change. Solar electricity economics are dependent more on public policy to encourage solar development and associated financial incentives and market prices of existing power than on the solar resource of any particular jurisdiction. Figure 14 shows the states where the private solar development markets are currently strongest, including the southwest and the northeast.

Figure 14. Top Ten States (in yellow) in Solar Project Development Capacity Through 20168

8 Solar Energy Industry Association. 2016. https://www.seia.org/research-resources/top-10-solar-states Accessed January 23, 2018



34

An example of being prepared for an opportunity is illustrated by the Solar Development Incentive (SDI), which was authorized by the Oregon Legislature in 2016. SDI created an open proposal process for solar developers to apply for an incentive payment of $0.005 / kWh generated by a solar project with a nameplate capacity of between 2 and 10 MW. Business Oregon, with support from the Oregon Department of Energy, selected 15 projects generating 150 MW of solar power for funding. Incentive payments will be made to each solar developer for the first five years of operation, thereby helping to reduce the cost of electricity produced. The total amount of incentive expected to be paid to the projects is $8.2million. The projects, names, and locations are listed in Table 8.

Table 8. Solar Projects Receiving Funding Under the Solar Development Incentive

Name Developer Location Size

Bear Creek Coronal Energy Deschutes County 10 MW

Hyline Cypress Creek Malheur County 9 MW

NorWest 2 Cypress Creek Deschutes County 10 MW

Railroad Cypress Creek Malheur County 4 MW

Vale Air Cypress Creek Malheur County 10 MW

OR Solar 3 ET Solar Klamath County 10 MW

OR Solar 5 ET Solar Klamath County 8 MW

OR Solar 6 ET Solar Lake County 10 MW

Adams GCL New Energy Jefferson County 10 MW

Bly GCL New Energy Klamath County 8 MW

Old Mill NextEra Klamath County 5 MW

Fossil Lake Obsidian Lake County 10 MW

Black Cap II Obsidian Lake County 8 MW

OSLH Pine Gate Renewables Deschutes County 10 MW

SP 5 Pine Gate Renewables Yamhill County 2 MW

NorWest 7 Pine Gate Renewables Jackson County 10 MW

Silverton Pine Gate Renewables Marion County 2 MW

SP 1 Pine Gate Renewables Marion County 2 MW

Woodline Pine Gate Renewables Klamath County 8 MW

Pilot Rock Sunthurst Umatilla County 2 MW

Conducting the technical evaluation of project siting will help the Airport effectively respond to future opportunities to develop solar energy. The following sections serve as an implementation guide to help the Airport prepare for a solar development project as part of the long-term planning process.

4.1.1 Step 1: Developing the Business Case for the Solar Vision

The Vision for Solar will communicate the Airport’s interests in developing solar power and why it is an effort that supports the long-term sustainability of the airport business. Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 151, “Developing a Business Case for Renewable Energy at Airports” describes the financial and planning benefits of pursuing renewable energy. Some of these points may be appropriate to the Airport’s solar vision.



35

Solar, with no operational fuel costs and little maintenance, provides a stable cost of power and acts as a hedge against volatile fossil fuel prices.

On-site power generation infrastructure investments will preserve power reliability and operational capacity of the Airport even in times when grid failure occurs avoiding delays and business costs associated with power outages.

The value of renewable energy is expected to increase in the future with rising demand for renewable energy certificates and carbon credits.

Investments in environmental projects will facilitate growth of sustainable aviation.

Development of the Airport as a world class facility, including the visible installation of progressive technologies like solar, will promote regional economic development to visitors.

While the City of Eugene is fortunate to have access to low cost renewable energy sources, solar will provide diversification and increased reliability.

Solar is consistent with the City’s climate change objectives.

The Solar Vision ultimately should be prepared by the Airport and affirmed by its governing body. However, the vision need not be long or complicated.

4.1.2 Step 2: Review of Project Options

Along with its solar vision which communicates how solar benefits the Airport and the City, the Airport will need a clear and simple presentation of the options available for pursuing solar. These options can be summarized as follows:

Option A - Airport-owned solar project:

Facility owned and operated by the Airport.

Key challenge is identifying low interest financing or grants to reduce investment.

Once installed, Airport will save on electricity payments – if the savings are greater than the debt service, it can be economical for the City.

Option to apply for FAA funding through Energy Efficiency Grant Program; however, this funding will delay funding for other Airport projects. See City of Portland Maine, 2017.9

No undue burden on Airport staff to manage and operate as these services are typically contracted out; though training opportunities would be available.

Airport, as owner of the facility, would own the renewable energy certificates and carbon credits which could either be sold to another entity who seeks to own renewable energy; or retired by the City allowing it to retain ownership of the renewable energy.

As the project is located on Airport property, it would be subject to approval by the FAA. For an Airport-owned project, the FAA would review the project for consistency with the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) and compliance with air navigation safety. If it issued a grant for the project under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), it would review the project and funding according the Federal grant assurances.

9 https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/maine/articles/2017-09-03/portland-airport-to-get-13-million-for-solar-array Accessed on January 26, 2018



36

Option B – Third-party-owned solar project:

Facility owned and operated by a private solar developer on Airport property through a lease.

Developer can access federal investment tax credit (ITC) which subsidizes project development costs and reduces the price of electricity by about 30%.

Developer must secure a long-term contract with an entity to purchase the power to support project financing. Potential buyers could be the Airport, the utility, the university, or a corporation. See Lakeland Linder Field, Lakeland Electric, and SunEdison (Florida), 2011-15.10

Project requires no upfront financial obligation from the Airport or the City. However, project hinges on a commitment to purchase power through a long-term contract so buyer of power is critical.

Developer would be responsible for all development risks. The power contract would define requirements of the developer to generate a minimum amount of electricity and penalties for not meeting those obligations. Buyer of power would be committed to purchasing the power at specific rate per year for a minimum of 15 years.

Developer would be responsible for all operations and maintenance of the facility.

Developer would own the renewable energy certificate and carbon credits which would then be sold as part of the power contract to the power purchaser as part of the purchase price (annual rate for electricity).

As the project is located on Airport property, it would be subject to approval by the FAA. For a third-party-owned project, the FAA would review the financial arrangements associated with the lease, consistency with the ALP, and compliance with air navigation safety.

4.1.3 Step 3: Communication with City Officials and the Utility

For a solar project at the Airport to succeed, it will be necessary to engage other key parties, in particular, City executive offices and the EWEB. Potential liaisons with an interest in solar power may include the City Sustainability Manager and a representative from the Solar Energy Center at the University of Oregon. Other members of city government or key stakeholders may also be included depending on specific experience.

The purpose of the initial communications and an introductory meeting would be to discuss the City’s renewable energy and emission reduction targets, the Airport’s planning initiatives around solar and the experience of solar and airports nationwide, and if a showcase solar project at the Airport could fit into a long-term plan. The Airport would present its vision for solar energy and communicate some of the business drivers described above for its pursuit. The solar siting analysis conducted as part of the feasibility study could be presented to identify sites that would meet the airport and City’s objectives in developing solar energy. A key factor in the discussion would be that the Airport is a perfect location for City investment in a solar pilot project given the amount of public traffic it facilitates. Based on the meeting and follow-up discussions as necessary, the Airport would evaluate the options for proceeding with an Airport or third-party owned project.

10 http://www.theledger.com/news/20170208/lakelands-5th-solar-farm-gets-its-day-in-sun Accessed on January 26, 2018



37

4.1.4 Step 4: Develop FAA Approval Plan

Along with the City of Eugene and EWEB, the FAA is a primary project partner. As a federally-obligated airport, the Airport is subject to broad FAA authority including various reviews associated with a solar project.

Communication with the FAA regional office should be initiated early in the process. Topics for discussion may include planning, funding, and project compliance. Depending on project ownership, the FAA approval process will address the following issues:

Airspace review: The project will require the filing FAA Form 7460, which specifies the project location and characteristics of the structure most notably height above ground. For solar projects proposed on Airport property, the FAA will review the project for compliance with its Interim Solar Policy and ocular hazard standards. The preparation of a glare study and attachment of the study to the Form 7460 will be sufficient for meeting the FAA’s review requirements. The FAA review is completed in a minimum of 45 days. The review will also take into account construction activities. A supplemental Form 7460 may be filed as the project gets closer to construction and types of equipment necessary for construction (e.g. crane) can be submitted for review.

Concurrent Use: If the project is proposed in an area designated for aeronautical uses, the Airport can either have the designation formally changed through a request to the FAA triggering a public notice in the Federal Register and a comment period, or through a concurrent use approval, which states that the use is consistent with the aeronautical designation because of the proposed life span of the use (i.e. project life of 25 years).

Lease approval: If the land proposed for solar will be leased to a private developer, the lease must be approved by the FAA. It will conduct a fair market analysis of the lease arrangement to ensure that the lease supports the Airport business to the maximum extent. The Airport will provide comparable information regarding the market value of the land (e.g., previous leases for agricultural use) to facilitate the FAA’s review. If the Airport is purchasing electricity as part of the arrangement, the FAA may also review the power purchase agreement as the land lease value may be rolled into the overall electricity purchase price.

Airport Layout Plan update: The ALP must be updated to show the proposed location of the solar facility. The update must also address any approved changes in uses.

Federal Grant Assurances: As part of the FAA’s review authority, it will ensure that the project is compliant with all FAA federal grant assurances.

4.1.5 Step 5: Build a Procurement Schedule

While the actual start date of implementation will vary based on feedback from EWEB and the City on options for project development, a project schedule can be prepared in isolation as the steps necessary to develop a solar project (either by the airport or a third-party developer) are known. The general steps are as follows:

Pre-procurement planning:

Review siting study to verify preferred project site and viable alternatives to present to decision-makers.

Along with each site, confirm scheme for project development and financing and fundamental steps necessary for each step. For example, for an Airport-owned project, it may require



38

application for an FAA grant or bonding approval. If it is a third-party developed project, it may require some City or EWEB action to authorize a long-term contract to purchase the power from the solar project as well as a purchase rate to facilitate financing.

Develop a basic site plan with project site, expected interconnection location, and solar project design characteristics for the purpose of support a Request for Proposals (RFP).

Communicate with internal stakeholders on the development plan. Then reach out to external stakeholders at EWEB, the City and Airport tenants as applicable.

Develop a Request for Proposals (RFP):

Draft the technical specifications for the RFP which describes the minimum standards of the project. If the Airport is pursuing an Airport-owned facility, the technical specification will be detailed. If the Airport is pursuing a third-party arrangement, the technical specifications will identify the project location for lease, responsibilities of the lessee, and request for qualifications.

If the City seeks to purchase the power generated by the third-party facility, the RFP should also include the form of a power purchase agreement (PPA). The bidders would submit a binding proposal for selling the electricity to the City and the terms and conditions associated with the PPA including number of years for the contract and year-to-year changes in price. Typically, the third-party will require a minimum of a 15-year contract to purchase the electricity so the airport should expect to execute this type of contract as part of the project.

The Airport will release the RFP commencing the procurement process. It will administer the procurement in a similar fashion to other public procurements with a bidder’s conference, site visit, questions and answers, and issuance of addenda as necessary.

A contractor will be selected, and contract negotiated and executed launching the project.

4.1.6 Step 6: Develop Engineering and Construction Schedule

Irrespective of who finances and owns the facility, the same steps are required to permit, engineer, and construct the project. These include:

Permitting: the project will require approvals at a minimum from the FAA and EWEB. Other approvals may be required from the City of Eugene and the State of Oregon depending on project location and potential environmental issues (e.g. wetlands).

Planning and Engineering: the project engineers will coordinate closely with the Airport and EWEB on issues associated with design and construction. Some of these issues will be identified during permitting and implemented as permitted during construction. Issues may include:

Safety and Security: depending on project location, contractors will need to receive training and protocol for work conducted at the Airport. It is expected that the Airport has a program in place for construction projects and the contractors working on the solar project will be incorporated into that program to ensure that all activities are conducted in a safe manner.

Electrical interconnection: the project design will be reviewed and approved by EWEB and construction will be coordinated closely with the Airport and EWEB. These steps are necessary to ensure that the solar facility is technically compatible with the electric grid and meets EWEB’s design criteria. For example, the design must include a disconnect such that the solar facility can be physically disconnected from the grid whether in response to an emergency or during routine maintenance. The physical interconnection of the project to the grid will also require shutting



39

some power down and this activity will need to be coordinated to minimize any operational impacts.

Planning Construction Logistics: consistent with safety and security plans and other requirements of the project, the contractor will need to develop a detailed construction plan to ensure that project construction does not adversely impact existing activities. In addition to building on the approvals received and communications protocols put into place, the construction schedule will need to be detailed and finalized. Aspects of the schedule may include pre-construction coordination, establishment of staging locations, removal of any existing material or other site preparation, delivery of equipment and material to staging sites, daily construction schedule, site sanitary services and waste management, and project commissioning and closeout.

Construction and Operations: The project will be constructed, interconnected, and commissioned in accordance with the steps described above. Construction length with depend on the size, location, and design of the project. Project’s located on the airside will require close coordination with flight operations and security to facilitate transfer of people and equipment to the site which produce schedule delays. Construction can be accomplished during any time of year, though weather with also affect progress. Smaller projects can be constructed in a matter of weeks while larger projects would be completed over several months. After formal system commissioning and acceptance testing, the terms of the construction contract will have been fulfilled and the system will deliver power to the electric grid. Operational contracts will then come into force.

If the Airport owns the facility, it will likely work with a contractor to oversee short-term operations and maintenance and staff training. If the third-party developer owns the system, the Airport will act as landlord for the facility overseeing access to the site. If the Airport is purchasing the electricity delivered by the third-party, the terms of the power purchase agreement will come into force and the Airport and developer will coordinate on respective responsibilities for ensuring the minimum electricity delivery requirements and making payments for electricity delivered.

4.1.7 Step 7: Confirm EWEB Interconnection and Approval Process

Before the project can proceed, the Airport will need to cooperate with EWEB on an interconnection and approval process. There are two primary roles for EWEB that must be defined before the project can proceed.

1. Reviewing and approving the interconnection facilities and assuming ownership of any upgrades

2. Facilitating the purchase of renewable energy generated by the project

EWEBs technical role related to interconnection is summarized in the Planning and Engineering discussion above. It is a systematic process that it must implement for a variety of customers who seek to install new power generation within the system. Though the process for approving hundreds of kilowatts like the proposed Airport solar project is not a regular occurrence for EWEB like it may be for larger utilities.

The second role in facilitating the purchase of renewable energy generated by the project will be an atypical process. EWEB could do so by several potential mechanisms.

Owning the solar project built at the Airport as it owns wind farms and hydro facilities. However, its proposal to shed its wind power assets may be an indication that it is not in the utility’s long-term business interest to own more facilities.



40

Allowing a remote consumer to purchase the energy produced by the facility and exported into the EWEB grid. EWEB would need to authorize such as transaction. It could be in a similar form as how it procures power for its green power program whereby consumers can elect to pay a premium to consume only renewable electricity.

Issuing an RFP to purchase power and renewable energy credits from a proposed solar project on Airport property. Under such a proposal, the Airport and EWEB could cooperate on an RFP whereby the procurement for third-party development on Airport property results in the selection of a developer and power purchase agreement with the developer signing a lease of land on Airport property and selling the power generated to EWEB.

While the interconnection process is defined by standards and procedures, the purchase of renewable energy supported and facilitated by EWEB will be a pilot project whose framework would likely build from the experience of other municipal utilities in Oregon or out-of-state.

4.1.8 Conclusions and Next Steps

In this section, the HMMH team prepared guidance for the Airport to follow in the implementation of an Airport solar project. While the economics of the two ownership options are challenging, these conditions can change in a short amount of time and the development of an implementation plan is important to be able to respond to an opportunity. Furthermore, a partnership with the City and EWEB could lead to a successful pilot project to meet the objectives of all parties and demonstrate a commitment to regional economic development, energy security, and environmental goals.

Conclusions and Next Steps


41

5 Conclusions and Next Steps

This report shows that there are many opportunities to develop a solar photovoltaic project that is compatible with existing and long-term growth of aviation activities at Eugene Airport. Project sites can make use of underutilized property, either undeveloped land or on buildings or over surface parking, to generate clean, renewable energy. Specific locations and project sizes have been identified, information that can be used to evaluate future opportunities.

The economics of these projects for the airport are not strong at this time primarily due to a lack of state financial incentives which make solar power comparatively expensive to existing power as illustrated by the 31 to 39-year payback period. However, as shown in Section 3, the HMMH team presented two primary options for pursuing solar:



The most economical option for developing solar would be for the Airport to apply to the FAA for an Energy Efficiency grant through for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) which would provide federal funding for 90 percent of the project costs and lower the payback on the local match to 3 to 4 years. As the funds used for solar would be taken from other identified airport improvements eligible for AIP funds; the Airport would need to determine that those improvements could be delayed.

Except for the AIP funding option, proceeding with a solar project at Eugene Airport is dependent on future public policy decisions on the local and state level to acquire solar power. While the economics of the two ownership options are challenging, these conditions can change in a short period of time and the development of an implementation plan is important to be able to respond to an opportunity in a timely manner. Programs similar to the Solar Development Incentive Program authorized by the Oregon legislature may become available to the City of Eugene and having the siting assessment completed will enable the Airport to respond to such opportunities. Furthermore, a partnership with the City and EWEB could lead to a successful pilot project to meet the objectives of all parties and demonstrate a commitment to regional economic development, energy security, and environmental goals.

Conclusions and Next Steps


42


GlareGauge Modeling Files for Projects A-G


A-1

Appendix A GlareGauge Modeling Files for Projects A-G

PV name Tilt Orientation "Green" Glare "Yellow" Glare "Red" Glare Energy Produced

deg deg min min min kWh

PV array Site A 30.0 180.0 501 0 0 1,170,000.0

PV array Site B 30.0 180.0 0 0 0 1,169,000.0

PV array Site C 30.0 180.0 51 0 0 1,170,000.0

PV array Site D 30.0 180.0 1089 0 0 -

PV array Site E 30.0 180.0 0 0 0 1,169,000.0

PV array Site F 30.0 180.0 463 359 0 1,170,000.0

PV array Site G 30.0 180.0 0 0 0 1,169,000.0

City of Eugene Solar Feasibility

Created Aug. 8, 2016 1:21

p.m.

DNI varies and peaks at

1,000.0 W/m^2

Analyze every 1 minute(s)

0.5 ocular transmission

coefficient

0.002 ft pupil diameter

0.017 ft eye focal length

9.3 mrad sun subtended

angle

Name: RWY 16L

Description:

Threshold height: 50 ft

Direction: 359.0 deg

Glide slope: 3.0 deg

Pilot view restricted? Yes

(/)

2015 © Sims Industries, All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy (/privacy-policy/) | Terms of Service (/terms-of-use/)

Untitled Site Config | ForgeSolar https://www.forgesolar.com/projects/423/configs/1897/

1 of 13 8/8/2016 2:13 PM

Number Latitude Longitude Ground elevation Height above ground Total Elevation

deg deg ft ft ft

1 44.117565 -123.212713 367 85 452

Vertical view restriction: 30.0

deg

Azimuthal view restriction:

90.0 deg

Point Latitude Longitude

Ground

elevation

Height

above

ground

Total

elevation

deg deg ft ft ft

Threshold 44.132996 -123.202733 363 50 413

2-mile

point

44.161904 -123.203437 347 619 966

Name: RWY 16R

Description:






deg


90.0 deg


Ground

elevation

Height

above

ground

Total

elevation

deg deg ft ft ft

Threshold 44.135460 -123.219180 360 50 410

2-mile

point

44.164368 -123.219884 342 621 963

Name: RWY 34L

Description:






deg


90.0 deg


Ground

elevation

Height

above

ground

Total

elevation

deg deg ft ft ft

Threshold 44.113480 -123.218837 365 50 415

2-mile

point

44.084572 -123.218133 371 597 969

Name: RWY 34R

Description:






deg


90.0 deg


Ground

elevation

Height

above

ground

Total

elevation

deg deg ft ft ft

Threshold 44.116507 -123.202507 373 50 423

2-mile

point

44.087599 -123.201804 374 603 977


2 of 13 8/8/2016 2:13 PM

Predicted energy output (assuming sunny, clear skies all year): 1,170,000.0 kWh

Axis tracking: Fixed (no rotation)

Tilt: 30.0 deg

Orientation: 180.0 deg

Rated power: 500.0 kW

Panel material: Smooth glass without AR

coating

Vary reflectivity with sun position? Yes

Correlate slope error with surface type?

No

Slope error: 10.0 mrad

Vertex Latitude Longitude

Ground

elevation

Height

above

ground

Total

elevation

deg deg ft ft ft

1 44.142397 -123.215961 352 10 362

2 44.142336 -123.210039 352 10 362

3 44.141320 -123.210039 353 10 363

4 44.141412 -123.215961 352 10 362

Component Green glare (min) Yellow glare (min) Red glare (min)

FP: RWY 16L 0 0 0

FP: RWY 16R 0 0 0

FP: RWY 34L 2 0 0

FP: RWY 34R 499 0 0

OP: 1 0 0 0


3 of 13 8/8/2016 2:13 PM


4 of 13 8/8/2016 2:13 PM


5 of 13 8/8/2016 2:13 PM



No glare found


Tilt: 30.0 deg




coating



No



Ground

elevation

Height

above

ground

Total

elevation

deg deg ft ft ft

1 44.137777 -123.208494 356 10 366

2 44.136791 -123.208408 355 10 365

3 44.136791 -123.205748 357 10 367

4 44.137746 -123.205791 355 10 365

No glare predicted!


Tilt: 30.0 deg




coating



No



Ground

elevation

Height

above

ground

Total

elevation

deg deg ft ft ft

1 44.128969 -123.197036 361 10 371

2 44.128014 -123.197079 362 10 372

3 44.128045 -123.199611 363 10 373

4 44.128938 -123.199654 362 10 372


6 of 13 8/8/2016 2:13 PM


FP: RWY 16L 0 0 0

FP: RWY 16R 0 0 0

FP: RWY 34L 51 0 0

FP: RWY 34R 0 0 0

OP: 1 0 0 0

No glare found

No glare found

No glare found

No glare found


7 of 13 8/8/2016 2:13 PM


Tilt: 30.0 deg


Rated power: -


coating



No



Ground

elevation

Height

above

ground

Total

elevation

deg deg ft ft ft

1 44.110129 -123.203237 372 10 382

2 44.110145 -123.200877 373 10 383

3 44.109467 -123.200855 376 10 386

4 44.109467 -123.203259 374 10 384


FP: RWY 16L 0 0 0

FP: RWY 16R 978 0 0

FP: RWY 34L 111 0 0

FP: RWY 34R 0 0 0

OP: 1 0 0 0

No glare found


8 of 13 8/8/2016 2:13 PM


9 of 13 8/8/2016 2:13 PM



No glare found

No glare found


Tilt: 30.0 deg




coating



No



Ground

elevation

Height

above

ground

Total

elevation

deg deg ft ft ft

1 44.109528 -123.215575 369 10 379

2 44.109528 -123.213344 371 10 381

3 44.108265 -123.213301 372 10 382

4 44.108327 -123.215661 370 10 380

No glare predicted!


Tilt: 30.0 deg




coating



No



Ground

elevation

Height

above

ground

Total

elevation

deg deg ft ft ft

1 44.120251 -123.228579 365 10 375

2 44.117139 -123.228579 366 10 376

3 44.117139 -123.226390 365 10 375

4 44.120251 -123.226433 364 10 374


10 of 13 8/8/2016 2:13 PM


FP: RWY 16L 0 0 0

FP: RWY 16R 0 0 0

FP: RWY 34L 37 0 0

FP: RWY 34R 0 0 0

OP: 1 426 359 0

No glare found

No glare found


11 of 13 8/8/2016 2:13 PM



Tilt: 30.0 deg




coating


12 of 13 8/8/2016 2:13 PM



No



Ground

elevation

Height

above

ground

Total

elevation

deg deg ft ft ft

1 44.131679 -123.223171 360 10 370

2 44.128322 -123.223343 358 10 368

3 44.128353 -123.225145 360 10 370

4 44.131710 -123.225145 355 10 365

No glare predicted!


13 of 13 8/8/2016 2:13 PM

GlareGauge Site Optimization for Project F


B-1

Appendix B GlareGauge Site Optimization for Project F

Site configs in optimization: 75

Orientation (deg) range: 140 to 260 in intervals of 5

Tilt angle (deg) range: 25 to 35 in intervals of 5

Observation Points: 1

Flight Paths: 4

Compilation of results for each PV configuration. Hazard, minutes of glare and energy produced. Hover over the

column headers for more information.

Panel

Orientation

Panel

Tilt

"Green"

Glare

"Yellow"

Glare

"Red"

Glare

Energy

Produced

% Max

Energy View details

deg deg min min min kWh % of

max

180.0 35.0 467 357 0 1,185,000.0 100.0% (/projects/projects

/423/optimizations

/123/13820/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13817/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13823/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13814/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13826/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13829/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13810/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13819/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13816/)

Projects (/projects/) / Project info (/projects/423/) / Optimizations (/projects/projects/423/optimizations/)

/ Site F Optimize

(/)

CONTACT (/CONTACT/) LOG OUT (/ACCOUNTS/LOGOUT/)

Optimization Results | ForgeSolar https://www.forgesolar.com/projects/projects/423/optimizations/123/

1 of 8 8/8/2016 3:32 PM

Panel

Orientation

Panel

Tilt

"Green"

Glare

"Yellow"

Glare

"Red"

Glare

Energy

Produced

% Max

Energy View details


/423/optimizations

/123/13822/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13832/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13808/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13813/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13825/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13811/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13828/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13805/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13835/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13831/)

160.0 30.0 1,014 43 0 1,153,000.0 97.3% (/projects/projects

/423/optimizations

/123/13807/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13818/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13821/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13815/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13838/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13834/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13804/)

(/)

ForgeSolar includes GlareGauge, the leading solar glare analysis tool used globally every day. Our tools meet the

FAA standards for glare analysis.

Sign up for a free trial today!

PRICING (/PRICING/)

MY PROJECTS (/PROJECTS/)

LOG OUT (/ACCOUNTS/LOGOUT/)

FAQ (/HELP/FREQUENTLY-ASKED-QUESTIONS/)

CONTACT US (/CONTACT/)

Phone: 937 802 5836

Email: [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])

2015 © Sims Industries, All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy (/privacy-policy/) | Terms of Service (/terms-of-use/)


2 of 8 8/8/2016 3:32 PM

Panel

Orientation

Panel

Tilt

"Green"

Glare

"Yellow"

Glare

"Red"

Glare

Energy

Produced

% Max

Energy View details


/423/optimizations

/123/13801/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13812/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13824/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13809/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13827/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13802/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13837/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13806/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13830/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13798/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13841/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13803/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13833/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13840/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13799/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13836/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13800/)


3 of 8 8/8/2016 3:32 PM

Panel

Orientation

Panel

Tilt

"Green"

Glare

"Yellow"

Glare

"Red"

Glare

Energy

Produced

% Max

Energy View details


/423/optimizations

/123/13844/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13796/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13843/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13795/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13839/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13797/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13847/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13794/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13842/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13846/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13850/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13845/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13849/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13848/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13852/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13853/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13851/)


4 of 8 8/8/2016 3:32 PM

Panel

Orientation

Panel

Tilt

"Green"

Glare

"Yellow"

Glare

"Red"

Glare

Energy

Produced

% Max

Energy View details


/423/optimizations

/123/13856/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13855/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13854/)

245.0 30.0 0 0 0 999,100.0 84.3% (/projects/projects

/423/optimizations

/123/13858/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13859/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13857/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13862/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13860/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13861/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13863/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13865/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13864/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13866/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13867/)


/423/optimizations

/123/13868/)

Component-specific glare predicted, in minutes. Only the most severe glare is shown.


5 of 8 8/8/2016 3:32 PM

PV Orientation Tilt

FP: RWY

16L glare

FP: RWY

16R glare

FP: RWY

34L glare

FP: RWY

34R glare

OP 1

glare % Max Energy

180.0 35.0 - - 79 green 0 light

green

357

yellow

100.0%

175.0 35.0 - - 59 green 0 light

green

319

yellow

99.8%

185.0 35.0 - - 100 green 0 light

green

300

yellow

99.8%

170.0 35.0 - - 33 green 0 light

green

201

yellow

99.6%

190.0 35.0 - - 126 green 0 light

green

173

yellow

99.6%

195.0 35.0 - - 140 green 0 light

green

53

yellow

99.1%

165.0 35.0 - - 11 green 0 light

green

80

yellow

99.1%

180.0 30.0 - - 39 green 0 light

green

393

yellow

98.7%

175.0 30.0 - - 20 green 0 light

green

358

yellow

98.6%

185.0 30.0 - - 56 green 0 light

green

326

yellow

98.6%

200.0 35.0 - - 187 green 0 light

green

- 98.4%

160.0 35.0 - - - 0 light

green

16

yellow

98.4%

170.0 30.0 - - 4 green 0 light

green

257

yellow

98.3%

190.0 30.0 - - 90 green 0 light

green

236

yellow

98.3%

165.0 30.0 - - - 0 light

green

122

yellow

97.9%

195.0 30.0 - - 112 green 0 light

green

93

yellow

97.9%

155.0 35.0 - - - 0 light

green

960

green

97.6%

205.0 35.0 - - 30 yellow 21 green - 97.6%

200.0 30.0 - - 151 green 0 light

green

- 97.3%

160.0 30.0 - - - 0 light

green

43

yellow

97.3%

180.0 25.0 - - 27 green 0 light

green

413

yellow

96.7%

185.0 25.0 - - 44 green 0 light

green

408

yellow

96.6%

175.0 25.0 - - 18 green 0 light

green

402

yellow

96.6%


6 of 8 8/8/2016 3:32 PM

PV Orientation Tilt

FP: RWY

16L glare

FP: RWY

16R glare

FP: RWY

34L glare

FP: RWY

34R glare

OP 1

glare % Max Energy

210.0 35.0 - - 137 yellow 45 green - 96.5%

205.0 30.0 - - 51 yellow 0 light

green

- 96.5%

155.0 30.0 - - - 0 light

green

1,202

green

96.5%

150.0 35.0 - - - 0 light

green

1,131

green

96.5%

170.0 25.0 - - - 0 light

green

341

yellow

96.4%

190.0 25.0 - - 61 green 0 light

green

239

yellow

96.4%

165.0 25.0 - - - 0 light

green

217

yellow

95.9%

195.0 25.0 - - 110 green 0 light

green

108

yellow

95.9%

150.0 30.0 - - - 0 light

green

1,224

green

95.5%

210.0 30.0 - - 141 yellow 32 green - 95.5%

160.0 25.0 - - - 0 light

green

124

yellow

95.4%

200.0 25.0 - - 2 yellow 0 light

green

3 yellow 95.4%

145.0 35.0 6 green - - 0 light

green

1,264

green

95.2%

215.0 35.0 - - 16 yellow 46 green - 95.2%

155.0 25.0 - - - 0 light

green

36

yellow

94.8%

205.0 25.0 - - 113 yellow 0 light

green

- 94.8%

215.0 30.0 - - 30 yellow 43 green - 94.3%

145.0 30.0 23 green - - 0 light

green

1,228

green

94.3%

210.0 25.0 - - 139 yellow 29 green - 93.8%

150.0 25.0 - - - 0 light

green

1,272

green

93.8%

220.0 35.0 - - - - - 93.8%

140.0 35.0 29 green - - 0 light

green

1,296

green

93.8%

220.0 30.0 - - - - - 93.1%

140.0 30.0 41 green - - 0 light

green

1,308

green

93.1%

215.0 25.0 - - 46 yellow 36 green - 92.8%


7 of 8 8/8/2016 3:32 PM

PV Orientation Tilt

FP: RWY

16L glare

FP: RWY

16R glare

FP: RWY

34L glare

FP: RWY

34R glare

OP 1

glare % Max Energy

145.0 25.0 17 green - - 0 light

green

1,244

green

92.8%

225.0 35.0 - - - - - 92.2%

140.0 25.0 38 green - - 0 light

green

1,344

green

91.7%

220.0 25.0 - - - - - 91.7%

225.0 30.0 - - - - - 91.5%

230.0 35.0 - - - - - 90.5%

225.0 25.0 - - - - - 90.5%

230.0 30.0 - - - - - 90.0%

230.0 25.0 - - - - - 89.0%

235.0 35.0 - - - - - 88.5%

235.0 30.0 - - - - - 88.0%

235.0 25.0 - - - - - 87.4%

240.0 35.0 - - - - - 86.4%

240.0 30.0 - - - - - 86.3%

240.0 25.0 - - - - - 85.7%

245.0 30.0 - - - - - 84.3%

245.0 35.0 - - - - - 84.2%

245.0 25.0 - - - - - 84.0%

250.0 30.0 - - - - - 82.2%

250.0 25.0 - - - - - 82.2%

250.0 35.0 - - - - - 81.9%

255.0 25.0 - - - - - 80.2%

255.0 30.0 - - - - - 80.0%

255.0 35.0 - - - - - 79.4%

260.0 25.0 - - - - - 78.1%

260.0 30.0 - - - - - 77.7%

260.0 35.0 - - - - - 76.9%


8 of 8 8/8/2016 3:32 PM

GlareGauge Modeling Files for Projects H, I, and J


C-1

Appendix C GlareGauge Modeling Files for Projects H, I, and J

10/18/2016 Site H Site Config | ForgeSolar

https://www.forgesolar.com/projects/718/configs/3354/ 1/8

Site conᴀ밄g: Site H

No site config description provided.Created Oct. 18, 2016 4:23 p.m.

DNI varies and peaks at 1,000.0 W/m^2Analyze every 1 minute(s)

0.5 ocular transmission coefficient0.0066 ft pupil diameter0.056 ft eye focal length

9.3 mrad sun subtended angle

(/)

https://www.forgesolar.com/



Summary of Results Glare with low potential for temporary after-image predicted





Site H 30.0 180.0 0 0 0

Site I 5.0 208.0 0 0 0

Site J 7.0 208.0 29 0 0

Component Data

Flight Paths

Name: Rwy 16LDescription:Threshold height: 50 ftDirection: 0.0 degGlide slope: 3.0 degPilot view restricted? YesVertical view restriction: 30.0 degAzimuthal view restriction: 90.0 deg

Point Latitude LongitudeGroundelevation

Height aboveground Total elevation

deg deg ft ft ft



deg deg ft ft ft

Threshold 44.132975 123.202765 363 50 413

2milepoint

44.161888 123.202765 347 619 966



Name: Rwy 16R4Description:Threshold height: 50 ftDirection: 0.0 degGlide slope: 3.0 degPilot view restricted? YesVertical view restriction: 30.0 degAzimuthal view restriction: 90.0 deg



deg deg ft ft ft



deg deg ft ft ft

Threshold 44.135470 123.219191 360 50 410

2milepoint

44.164383 123.219191 342 620 963

Name: Rwy 34LDescription:Threshold height: 50 ftDirection: 180.0 degGlide slope: 3.0 degPilot view restricted? YesVertical view restriction: 30.0 degAzimuthal view restriction: 90.0 deg



deg deg ft ft ft



deg deg ft ft ft

Threshold 44.113513 123.218837 365 50 415

2milepoint

44.084601 123.218837 373 595 969

Name: Rwy 34R



Observation Points


deg deg ft ft ft


deg deg ft ft ft

1 44.117596 123.212786 367 85 452

Site H

Description:Threshold height: 50 ftDirection: 180.0 degGlide slope: 3.0 degPilot view restricted? YesVertical view restriction: 30.0 degAzimuthal view restriction: 90.0 deg



deg deg ft ft ft



deg deg ft ft ft

Threshold 44.116556 123.202518 373 50 423

2milepoint

44.087643 123.202518 374 602 977

Axis tracking: Fixed (no rotation)Tilt: 30.0 degOrientation: 180.0 degRated power: Panel material: Smooth glasswithout AR coatingVary reflectivity with sunposition? YesCorrelate slope error withsurface type? YesSlope error: 6.55 mrad



Site I

Vertex Latitude LongitudeGroundelevation

Heightaboveground

Totalelevation

deg deg ft ft ft


Heightaboveground

Totalelevation

deg deg ft ft ft

1 44.115198 123.212013 367 10 377

2 44.113904 123.212013 368 10 378

3 44.113873 123.208795 373 10 383

4 44.115876 123.208795 371 10 381

5 44.115876 123.209438 369 10 379

6 44.114859 123.210597 369 10 379

7 44.115506 123.211670 368 10 378

No glare predicted!

Axis tracking: Fixed (no rotation)Tilt: 5.0 degOrientation: 208.0 degRated power: Panel material: Smooth glasswithout AR coatingVary reflectivity with sunposition? YesCorrelate slope error withsurface type? NoSlope error: 10.0 mrad


Heightaboveground

Totalelevation

deg deg ft ft ft


Heightaboveground

Totalelevation

deg deg ft ft ft

1 44.119819 123.212249 366 42 408

2 44.119665 123.211906 367 42 409

3 44.118587 123.212786 366 42 408

4 44.118741 123.213108 366 42 408

No glare predicted!



Site J low potential for temporary after-image

Axis tracking: Fixed (no rotation)Tilt: 7.0 degOrientation: 208.0 degRated power: Panel material: Smooth glasswithout AR coatingVary reflectivity with sunposition? YesCorrelate slope error withsurface type? NoSlope error: 10.0 mrad


Heightaboveground

Totalelevation

deg deg ft ft ft


Heightaboveground

Totalelevation

deg deg ft ft ft

1 44.119835 123.211026 366 18 384

2 44.118048 123.212571 365 18 383

3 44.117786 123.212142 367 18 385

4 44.119650 123.210490 366 18 384

Summary of component results



FP: Rwy 16L 0 0 0

FP: Rwy 16R4 0 0 0

FP: Rwy 34L 0 0 0

FP: Rwy 34R 29 0 0

OP: 1 0 0 0

Flight path: Rwy 16LNo glare found

Flight path: Rwy 16R4No glare found

Flight path: Rwy 34LNo glare found



2015 © Sims Industries, All Rights Reserved.

Flight path: Rwy 34R

Observation point: 1No glare found

2015 © Sims Industries, All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy (/privacypolicy/) | Terms of Service (/termsofuse/)

https://www.forgesolar.com/privacy-policy/

https://www.forgesolar.com/terms-of-use/



Date post:	27-Feb-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	6 times
Download:	1 times

Eugene Airport Solar Feasibility Study

Documents