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
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.
iii
Executive Summary
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.
iv
Executive Summary
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.
v
Executive Summary
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
vi
Executive Summary
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.
vii
Executive Summary
This page intentionally left blank
viii
Contents
Contents
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Solar Background at Airports ............................................................................................................................. 1
2 Physical Constraints Analysis .......................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Physical Constraints Analysis.............................................................................................................................. 5
2.1.1 Airport Planning ................................................................................................................................................. 5
2.1.2 Environmental Resources................................................................................................................................... 7
2.1.3 Electrical Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................... 10
2.1.4 Glare Standards ................................................................................................................................................ 13
2.2 Conclusions and Next Steps ............................................................................................................................. 18
3 Airport Energy Usage and Economic Analysis ........................................................................... 21

3.1 Electricity Usage and Costs .............................................................................................................................. 21
3.2 Solar Electricity Production .............................................................................................................................. 24
3.3 Solar Policies and Incentives ............................................................................................................................ 25
3.4 Development and Ownership Options – Airport-Owned vs Third-Party Owned ............................................. 28
3.4.1 Airport-Owned with On-Site Power Use .......................................................................................................... 29
3.4.2 Third-Party Owned with Off-Site Use ............................................................................................................... 30
3.5 Simple Payback Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 30
3.5.1 On-Site Use - Airport-Owned ........................................................................................................................... 30
3.5.2 Off-Site Use - Third-Party Developer ................................................................................................................ 31
3.6 Conclusions and Next Steps ............................................................................................................................. 32
4 Feasibility Ownership Models, Regulatory Review, and Coordination with Local

Utility ................................................................................................................................................. 33
4.1 The Plan for Implementation ........................................................................................................................... 33
4.1.1 Step 1: Developing the Business Case for the Solar Vision .............................................................................. 34
4.1.2 Step 2: Review of Project Options .................................................................................................................... 35
4.1.3 Step 3: Communication with City Officials and the Utility ............................................................................... 36
4.1.4 Step 4: Develop FAA Approval Plan.................................................................................................................. 37
4.1.5 Step 5: Build a Procurement Schedule ............................................................................................................. 37
4.1.6 Step 6: Develop Engineering and Construction Schedule ................................................................................ 38
4.1.7 Step 7: Confirm EWEB Interconnection and Approval Process ........................................................................ 39
4.1.8 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
ix
Contents
Figures
Figure ES-1. Potential Solar PV Project Site Locations at Eugene Airport.................................................................... iv
Figure 1. Solar Projects at U.S. Airports ........................................................................................................................ 2
Figure 2. Solar Projects at Airports Across the World .................................................................................................. 2
Figure 3. Examples of Airport Solar Project Designs ..................................................................................................... 3
Figure 4. EUG Aviation Safety Zones and Airport Infrastructure .................................................................................. 6
Figure 5. Aviation Safety Zones with Alternative Revenue Sites .................................................................................. 9
Figure 6. Wetland Resources Mapped at EUG............................................................................................................ 10
Figure 7. Significant Transmission Infrastructure ....................................................................................................... 12
Figure 8. ATCT and Pilot Observation Points Assessed For Glare ............................................................................... 16
Figure 9. Cross-section of a Typical Solar Canopy Structure....................................................................................... 17
Figure 10. Location of Three Airport Facilities with Electrical Bills ............................................................................. 22
Figure 11. Electricity Consumed by Month at Three Airport Facilities, July 2016 to June 2017................................. 22
Figure 12. Net energy metering with Solar PV ........................................................................................................... 23
Figure 13. Ownership and Financing .......................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 14. Top Ten States (in yellow) in Solar Project Development Capacity Through 2016 .................................... 33
Tables
Table 1. Potential Solar Project Sites .......................................................................................................................... 13
Table 2. Levels of Glare and Compliance with FAA Policy .......................................................................................... 14
Table 3. Preferred Design for each of the Solar Project Sites ..................................................................................... 17
Table 4. GlareGauge Modeling Results for the Proposed Solar Project Site Locations* ............................................ 18
Table 5. Electricity Account Cost Breakdown (August 2016 – July 2017) ................................................................... 24
Table 6. Electricity Generation in kWh from Potential Solar Project Sites Identified at Eugene Airport ................... 25
Table 7. Economics of a Third Party Owned Solar Project at Site D ........................................................................... 31
Table 8. Solar Projects Receiving Funding Under the Solar Development Incentive .................................................. 34
x
Introduction
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.
1
Introduction
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.
2
Introduction
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.pdf
4
FAA. 2012. Interim Guidance on Land Uses Within a Runway Protection Zone. September 27, 2012.
https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/media/interimLandUseRPZGuidance.pdf
5
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-airports
6
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.
3
Introduction
4
Physical Constraints Analysis
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.
5
Figure 4. EUG Aviation Safety Zones and Airport Infrastructure
6
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.
7
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).
8
Figure 5. Aviation Safety Zones with Alternative Revenue Sites
9
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
10
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.
11
Figure 7. Significant Transmission Infrastructure
12
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
13
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 Does the result comply
Model Recorded Level of Glare Model Color Result
Receptor 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
14
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.
15
Figure 8. ATCT and Pilot Observation Points Assessed For Glare
16
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
Dependent on parking
Fixed Canopy 7° 18 feet
orientation
Either directly attached to a
Dependent on building roof No additional structure, use
Fixed Building-mounted sloped roof or tilted 5° off a
orientation roof height
flat roof
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.
17
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
180° / 30° -- -- -- -- -- Yes
Northwest
H – Below South
180° / 30° -- -- -- -- -- Yes
Hangars
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.
18
19
Airport Energy Usage and Economic Analysis
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.
21
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
22
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.
23
Table 5. Electricity Account Cost Breakdown (August 2016 – July 2017)

Electricity Demand (or Reactive Administrative
Account Consumed Percent of Bill Peak) Charge Percent of Bill Power Percent of Bill Charge
(kWh) (kW) (KVAR)* Percent
Airport
3,211,080 81.0% 6,109.20 18.4% 2,851 0.3% 0.3%
Terminal
Airport
Operations 121,520 68.3% 377.2 25.3% NA NA 6.4%
Center
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.
24
Table 6. Electricity Generation in kWh from Potential Solar Project Sites Identified at Eugene Airport
Power Generated
Site Location Orientation/Tilt % of Airport Total1
(kWh)
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
25
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
26
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
27
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.
28
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.
29
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:
30
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
31
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.
32
Feasibility Ownership Models, Regulatory Review, and Coordination with Local Utility
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:
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
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
33
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.
34
 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
35
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
36
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
37
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
38
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.
39
 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
40
Conclusions and Next Steps
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.
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:
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
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
41
Conclusions and Next Steps
42
GlareGauge Modeling Files for Projects A-G
Appendix A GlareGauge Modeling Files for Projects

A-G
A-1
Untitled Site Config | ForgeSolar https://www.forgesolar.com/projects/423/configs/1897/
(/)
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
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
2015 © Sims Industries, All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy (/privacy-policy/) | Terms of Service (/terms-of-use/)
Name: RWY 16L

Description:
Threshold height: 50 ft
Direction: 359.0 deg
Glide slope: 3.0 deg
Pilot view restricted? Yes
1 of 13 8/8/2016 2:13 PM
Vertical view restriction: 30.0

Height
deg Ground above Total
Azimuthal view restriction: Point Latitude Longitude elevation ground elevation
90.0 deg
deg deg ft ft ft
Threshold 44.132996 -123.202733 363 50 413
2-mile 44.161904 -123.203437 347 619 966

point
Name: RWY 16R

Height
Description: Ground above Total
Threshold height: 50 ft Point Latitude Longitude elevation ground elevation
Glide slope: 3.0 deg deg deg ft ft ft

Threshold 44.135460 -123.219180 360 50 410
deg 2-mile 44.164368 -123.219884 342 621 963
Azimuthal view restriction: point
90.0 deg
Name: RWY 34L

Height

Threshold 44.113480 -123.218837 365 50 415
deg 2-mile 44.084572 -123.218133 371 597 969
90.0 deg
Name: RWY 34R

Height

Threshold 44.116507 -123.202507 373 50 423
deg 2-mile 44.087599 -123.201804 374 603 977
90.0 deg
Number Latitude Longitude Ground elevation Height above ground Total Elevation
deg deg ft ft ft
1 44.117565 -123.212713 367 85 452
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)

Height
Tilt: 30.0 deg Ground above Total
Orientation: 180.0 deg Vertex Latitude Longitude elevation ground elevation
Rated power: 500.0 kW
Panel material: Smooth glass without AR deg deg ft ft ft
coating
1 44.142397 -123.215961 352 10 362
Vary reflectivity with sun position? Yes
Correlate slope error with surface type? 2 44.142336 -123.210039 352 10 362
No
Slope error: 10.0 mrad 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

Height
coating
1 44.137777 -123.208494 356 10 366
No
Slope error: 10.0 mrad 3 44.136791 -123.205748 357 10 367
4 44.137746 -123.205791 355 10 365
No glare predicted!

Height
coating
1 44.128969 -123.197036 361 10 371
No
Slope error: 10.0 mrad 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

Height
Rated power: -
coating
1 44.110129 -123.203237 372 10 382
No
Slope error: 10.0 mrad 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

Height
coating
1 44.109528 -123.215575 369 10 379
No
Slope error: 10.0 mrad 3 44.108265 -123.213301 372 10 382
4 44.108327 -123.215661 370 10 380
No glare predicted!

Height
coating
1 44.120251 -123.228579 365 10 375
No
Slope error: 10.0 mrad 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
Orientation: 180.0 deg
Panel material: Smooth glass without AR
coating
12 of 13 8/8/2016 2:13 PM

Height
Correlate slope error with surface type? Ground above Total
No Vertex Latitude Longitude elevation ground elevation
Slope error: 10.0 mrad
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
Appendix B GlareGauge Site Optimization for Project

F
B-1
Optimization Results | ForgeSolar https://www.forgesolar.com/projects/projects/423/optimizations/123/
CONTACT (/CONTACT/) LOG OUT (/ACCOUNTS/LOGOUT/)
(/)
Projects (/projects/) / Project info (/projects/423/) / Optimizations (/projects/projects/423/optimizations/)

/ Site F Optimize
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 Panel "Green" "Yellow" "Red" Energy % Max

Orientation Tilt Glare Glare Glare Produced 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/)
1 of 8 8/8/2016 3:32 PM
(/)
ForgeSolar includes
Orientation TiltGlareGauge,
Glare the leading
Glaresolar glare
Glareanalysis tool used globally
Produced Energyevery day. Our tools
View meet the
details
FAA standards for glare analysis.
Sign up for a free trial today! /423/optimizations
/123/13822/)

/423/optimizations
/123/13832/)
PRICING (/PRICING/)
MY PROJECTS (/PROJECTS/) /423/optimizations
/123/13808/)
LOG OUT (/ACCOUNTS/LOGOUT/)
170.0
FAQ 30.0 686
(/HELP/FREQUENTLY-ASKED-QUESTIONS/) 257 0 1,165,000.0 98.3% (/projects/projects
/423/optimizations
CONTACT US (/CONTACT/)
/123/13813/)

/423/optimizations
/123/13825/)

Phone: 937 802 5836
/423/optimizations
Email: support@forgesolar.com (mailto:support@forgesolar.com)
/123/13811/)

/423/optimizations
/123/13828/)
155.0
2015 35.0 All Rights
© Sims Industries, 960 Reserved.
0 Privacy Policy
0 1,156,000.0
(/privacy-policy/) | 97.6% (/projects/projects
Terms of Service (/terms-of-use/)
/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/)
2 of 8 8/8/2016 3:32 PM


/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


/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


/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
FP: RWY FP: RWY FP: RWY FP: RWY OP 1

PV Orientation Tilt 16L glare 16R glare 34L glare 34R glare glare % Max Energy
180.0 35.0 - - 79 green 0 light 357 100.0%

green yellow
175.0 35.0 - - 59 green 0 light 319 99.8%

green yellow
185.0 35.0 - - 100 green 0 light 300 99.8%

green yellow
170.0 35.0 - - 33 green 0 light 201 99.6%

green yellow
190.0 35.0 - - 126 green 0 light 173 99.6%

green yellow
195.0 35.0 - - 140 green 0 light 53 99.1%

green yellow
165.0 35.0 - - 11 green 0 light 80 99.1%

green yellow
180.0 30.0 - - 39 green 0 light 393 98.7%

green yellow
175.0 30.0 - - 20 green 0 light 358 98.6%

green yellow
185.0 30.0 - - 56 green 0 light 326 98.6%

green yellow
200.0 35.0 - - 187 green 0 light - 98.4%

green
160.0 35.0 - - - 0 light 16 98.4%

green yellow
170.0 30.0 - - 4 green 0 light 257 98.3%

green yellow
190.0 30.0 - - 90 green 0 light 236 98.3%

green yellow
165.0 30.0 - - - 0 light 122 97.9%

green yellow
195.0 30.0 - - 112 green 0 light 93 97.9%

green yellow
155.0 35.0 - - - 0 light 960 97.6%

green green
205.0 35.0 - - 30 yellow 21 green - 97.6%
200.0 30.0 - - 151 green 0 light - 97.3%

green
160.0 30.0 - - - 0 light 43 97.3%

green yellow
180.0 25.0 - - 27 green 0 light 413 96.7%

green yellow
185.0 25.0 - - 44 green 0 light 408 96.6%

green yellow
175.0 25.0 - - 18 green 0 light 402 96.6%

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

210.0 35.0 - - 137 yellow 45 green - 96.5%
205.0 30.0 - - 51 yellow 0 light - 96.5%

green
155.0 30.0 - - - 0 light 1,202 96.5%

green green
150.0 35.0 - - - 0 light 1,131 96.5%

green green
170.0 25.0 - - - 0 light 341 96.4%

green yellow
190.0 25.0 - - 61 green 0 light 239 96.4%

green yellow
165.0 25.0 - - - 0 light 217 95.9%

green yellow
195.0 25.0 - - 110 green 0 light 108 95.9%

green yellow
150.0 30.0 - - - 0 light 1,224 95.5%

green green
210.0 30.0 - - 141 yellow 32 green - 95.5%
160.0 25.0 - - - 0 light 124 95.4%

green yellow
200.0 25.0 - - 2 yellow 0 light 3 yellow 95.4%

green
145.0 35.0 6 green - - 0 light 1,264 95.2%

green green
215.0 35.0 - - 16 yellow 46 green - 95.2%
155.0 25.0 - - - 0 light 36 94.8%

green yellow
205.0 25.0 - - 113 yellow 0 light - 94.8%

green
215.0 30.0 - - 30 yellow 43 green - 94.3%
145.0 30.0 23 green - - 0 light 1,228 94.3%

green green
210.0 25.0 - - 139 yellow 29 green - 93.8%
150.0 25.0 - - - 0 light 1,272 93.8%

green green
220.0 35.0 - - - - - 93.8%
140.0 35.0 29 green - - 0 light 1,296 93.8%

green green
220.0 30.0 - - - - - 93.1%
140.0 30.0 41 green - - 0 light 1,308 93.1%

green green
215.0 25.0 - - 46 yellow 36 green - 92.8%
7 of 8 8/8/2016 3:32 PM

145.0 25.0 17 green - - 0 light 1,244 92.8%

green green
225.0 35.0 - - - - - 92.2%
140.0 25.0 38 green - - 0 light 1,344 91.7%

green green
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
Appendix C GlareGauge Modeling Files for Projects

H, I, and J
C-1
10/18/2016 Site H Site Config | ForgeSolar
(/)
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^2
Analyze every 1 minute(s)
0.5 ocular transmission coefficient
0.0066 ft pupil diameter
0.056 ft eye focal length
9.3 mrad sun subtended angle
https://www.forgesolar.com/projects/718/configs/3354/ 1/8
PV name Tilt Orientation "Green" Glare

Ground "Yellow" Glare "Red" Glare Energy Produced
Height above
Summary
Point
ofLatitude
Results
deg
Longitude
deg Glare with
elevation
minlow potentialmin
ground
for temporarymin
Total elevation
after-image predicted
kWh
deg deg ft ft ft
PV name Tilt Orientation "Green" Glare "Yellow" Glare "Red" Glare Energy Produced
deg deg min min min kWh
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 16L
Description:
Direction: 0.0 deg
Vertical view restriction: 30.0 deg
Azimuthal view restriction: 90.0 deg
Ground Height above
Point Latitude Longitude elevation ground Total elevation
deg deg ft ft ft
Threshold 44.132975 123.202765 363 50 413
2mile 44.161888 123.202765 347 619 966

point
Name: Rwy 16R4
Ground Height above
Description:
Direction: 0.0 deg deg deg ft ft ft
Ground Height above
deg deg ft ft ft
Threshold 44.135470 123.219191 360 50 410
2mile 44.164383 123.219191 342 620 963

point
Name: Rwy 34L
Description:
Ground Height above
deg deg ft ft ft
Threshold 44.113513 123.218837 365 50 415
2mile 44.084601 123.218837 373 595 969

point
Name: Rwy 34R
Description:
Number Latitude Longitude Ground elevation
Ground Height above ground
Height above Total Elevation
deg deg ft ft ft
deg
Glide slope: 3.0 deg deg ft ft ft
Ground Height above
deg deg ft ft ft
Threshold 44.116556 123.202518 373 50 423
2mile 44.087643 123.202518 374 602 977

point
Observation Points
Number Latitude Longitude Ground elevation Height above ground Total Elevation
deg deg ft ft ft
1 44.117596 123.212786 367 85 452
Site H
Tilt: 30.0 deg
Orientation: 180.0 deg
Rated power:
Panel material: Smooth glass
without AR coating
Vary reflectivity with sun
position? Yes
Correlate slope error with
surface type? Yes
Height Height
Ground above Total Ground above Total
Vertex Latitude Longitude elevation
Vertex Latitude
ground elevation
Longitude elevation ground elevation
deg deg ft deg

ft ftdeg 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!
Site I
Height
Rated power:
Panel material: Smooth glass deg deg ft ft ft
without AR coating
1 44.119819 123.212249 366 42 408
position? Yes 2 44.119665 123.211906 367 42 409
surface type? No 3 44.118587 123.212786 366 42 408
4 44.118741 123.213108 366 42 408
No glare predicted!

Height
Site J low potential for temporary after-image

Vertex Latitude Longitude
Ground
elevation
above Total
ground elevation
deg deg ft ft ft
Height
Rated power:
Panel material: Smooth glass deg deg ft ft ft
without AR coating
1 44.119835 123.211026 366 18 384
position? Yes 2 44.118048 123.212571 365 18 383
surface type? No 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 16L

No glare found
Flight path: Rwy 16R4

No glare found
Flight path: Rwy 34L

No glare found
Flight path: Rwy 34R
Observation point: 1
No glare found
2015 © Sims Industries, All Rights Reserved.
2015 © Sims Industries, All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy (/privacypolicy/) | Terms of Service (/termsofuse/)

Eugene Airport Solar Feasibility Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Eugene Airport Solar Feasibility Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eugene Airport Solar Feasibility Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eugene Airport

Solar Feasibility Study

HMMH Report No. 308220

RS&H and Eugene Airport

HMMH Report No. 308220

Philip DeVita (HMMH)

Task 1 – Kickoff Meeting and Context for Project

Task 2 – Physical Constraints Analysis

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

Task 3 – Airport Energy Usage and Economic Analysis

 28800 Douglas Drive: Airport Terminal building;

Task 5 – Report with Recommendations

This page intentionally left blank

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

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

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

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

1. Coordination and Kickoff Meeting;

1.1 Solar Background at Airports

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

Figure 3. Examples of Airport Solar Project Designs

This page intentionally left blank

2 Physical Constraints Analysis

2.1 Physical Constraints Analysis

2.1.1 Airport Planning

Figure 4. EUG Aviation Safety Zones and Airport Infrastructure

2.1.2 Environmental Resources

Figure 5. Aviation Safety Zones with Alternative Revenue Sites

Figure 6. Wetland Resources Mapped at EUG

2.1.3 Electrical Infrastructure

Figure 7. Significant Transmission Infrastructure

Table 1. Potential Solar Project Sites

2.1.4 Glare Standards

2.1.4.1 FAA Jurisdiction and Standards for Measuring Ocular Impact

Table 2. Levels of Glare and Compliance with FAA Policy

2.1.4.2 Modeling Methodology

2.1.4.3 Design Considerations

Figure 8. ATCT and Pilot Observation Points Assessed For Glare

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

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

2.2 Conclusions and Next Steps

This page intentionally left blank

3 Airport Energy Usage and Economic Analysis

1. Electricity usage and costs

3.1 Electricity Usage and Costs

Figure 10. Location of Three Airport Facilities with Electrical Bills

Figure 12. Net energy metering with Solar PV

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

3.2 Solar Electricity Production

3.3 Solar Policies and Incentives

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

Figure 13. Ownership and Financing

3.4.1 Airport-Owned with On-Site Power Use