1. Ninth Avenue Terminal (NAT)
Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Feasibility Study
MSE/ER C226 – Photovoltaic Materials: Students
Sebastien Lounis
Florent Martin
Eric Zielke

2. Presentation Outline
1. Project Background
- Ninth Avenue Terminal Specifications
- Existing and Proposed Solar PV Incentives
2. Existing and Future Incentive Alternatives
- Criteria Involved
- Advantages and Disadvantages
- Decision Analysis
3. Specifications of Recommended Solutions
- Economic Analysis
4. Conclusions and Final Recommendations

3. Project Objective
Evaluate the economic feasibility of installing solar
panels atop the proposed vintner's hall at the Ninth
Avenue Terminal (NAT) in Oakland, CA by utilizing
existing and/or future-based PV incentive
programs.
Provide a final recommendation to Ninth Avenue
Terminal (NAT) Partners, LLC on how to proceed
with the proposed PV installation.

4. Project Background
• Our report was produced for the benefit of
NAT Partners, LLC
• Our Collaborators:
– Ramsey Wright, NAT Partners
– Chrissy Tsai, NAT Partners
– Dustin Jolley, URS Corporation

5. Project Background
• Built in 1929, the NAT is a “bulk-break warehouse that served as
an important shipping HUB for several decades.
• Today, it is used as for cotton storage.
• The NAT faced almost complete demolition under the “Oak to 9th”
redevelopment project.

6. Project Background
• NAT Partners, LLC has proposed reusing the historic shipping
warehouse as a vintner’s hall.
• As part of their proposal, NAT Partners expressed interest in using
the 90,000 square feet of mostly un-shaded roof space for
PV.
• The project will be seeking final approval from the Oakland City
Council in January.

7. Project Background
Presently Available Incentives for the Project:
– Net Energy Metering provided by PG&E
– The California Solar Initiative (CSI) Performance Based Incentive
– The California Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) of ~ 0.135 $/kWh
– The Federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for renewable energy investors
– Renewable Energy Credits (RECs)
Potential Future Policy Measures Also Considered:
– Increase in FIT to 0.35 $/kWh
– Increase in FIT to 0.60 $/kWh
– PG&E rooftop leasing

8. Existing and Future Incentive Alternatives
Criteria Evaluated
1. Economics
2. Public Relations
3. Branding
4. Potential Power
5. Ease of Implementation
Initial Screening – Project Elimination
• Initial Capital Cost/Investment
• Bidding Process (i.e. large-scale)

9. Existing and Future Incentive Alternatives
Existing Incentive Alternative 1: CSI (Tax Equity Investor)
Advantages:
– Grid-bought power virtually
entirely displaced
– Keep RECs
– Take advantage of CSI
Rebate and Net Metering
– Open to scale-up
Disadvantages:
– No sellback to grid.
– Loan interest rate of 5.2%
needed for grid-parity over 25
year lifetime
Utilized Roof Space: ~15,000 Sq. Ft.

10. Existing and Future Incentive Alternatives
Existing Incentive Alternative 2: FIT (Tax Equity Investor)
Advantages:
– Net Producing - Sellback to Grid
– Use of entire roof space
– Keep RECs
Disadvantages:
– Disqualified from all other state
incentive programs
– Very high capital cost
– Net loss over lifetime of system
Utilized Roof Space: ~90,000 Sq. Ft.

11. Existing and Future Incentive Alternatives
Existing Incentive Alternative 3: CSI with PPA
Advantages:
– No capital cost
– Fixed rate for electricity
– Potential for system buyback after fixed
time
– Keep RECs
– Take advantage of net metering
– No O&M costs
Disadvantages:
– No sellback
– Contract restrictions to building
alterations
– Limited flexibility in event of short term
policy changes
Utilized Roof Space: ~15,000 Sq. Ft. – Higher present rate for electricity than
grid-bought bower
– Additional Administrative Costs

12. Existing and Future Incentive Alternatives
Future Incentive Alternative 1: 0.35$/kWh FIT (Tax Equity
Investor)
Advantages:
– Net Producing - Sellback
to Grid
– Use of entire roof space
Disadvantages:
– Disqualified from all other
state incentive programs
– Very high capital cost
– Feasibility depend
– RECs owned by PG&E
Utilized Roof Space: ~90,000 Sq. Ft.

13. Existing and Future Incentive Alternatives
Future Incentive Alternative 2: 0.60$/kWh FIT (Tax Equity
Investor)
Advantages:
– Net Producing - Sellback
to Grid
– Use of entire roof space
Disadvantages:
– Disqualified from all other
state incentive programs
– Very high capital cost
– Feasibility depend
– RECs owned by PG&E
Utilized Roof Space: ~90,000 Sq. Ft.

14. Existing and Future Incentive Alternatives
Future Incentive Alternative 3: PG&E Lease Agreement
Advantages:
– Revenue from renting of
roof space
– No capital cost
– No O&M cost
Disadvantages:
– Do not own power
produced – no sellback
– Contract restrictions on
building alterations
– Additional administrative
Utilized Roof Space: ~90,000 Sq. Ft. costs

15. Existing and Future Incentive Alternatives
Delphi Method
• We used a Delphi method based on our criteria to rank the 4
alternatives with available economic data (2 existing, 2 future)
• Each criterion was given a weighting factor based on input from our
group and our collaborators.
• Each alternative was ranked according to each criterion.
• The product of the weight and ranking gives the results:
Alternative: Delphi Score
CSI (Tax Equity Investor) – present 38.5 (present winner)
FIT (Tax Equity Investor) – present 23.5
0.35 $/kWh FIT – future 26.5
0.60 $/kWh FIT – future 32.5 (future winner)
• PPA and Lease-agreement excluded due to lack of economic data.

16. Specifications of Recommended Solutions
250 kW system, net metering alternative
$6.2/Wp installation cost
SunPower 305 solar
panels
0.22$/kWh for 5 years
under CSI
The system pays back in 25 years assuming a 5.2% interest rate and an escalation
rate of the cost of electricity equal to 6%.
NB: The calculated price of electricity is corrected
for inflation . Real rates were used for calculations
instead of nominal rates.

17. Specifications of Recommended Solutions
1.5 MW system, Feed-In-Tariff Alternative
$5.8/Wp installation cost
SunPower 305 solar
panels
With a 60c/kWh FIT and a 10% interest rate, the payback period is 11 years.

18. Conclusions and Final Recommendations
System Recommendation: Load-Matching 250 kW array
Financing: (1) Loan from Independent Tax Equity Investor or (2) PPA
through a Solar Service Provider.
Advantages:
– Potential for parity with grid-bought power
– Ownership of RECs
– Flexibility to adapt with future policy measures
Caveat: Feasibility/ Profitability very Dependent on Negotiated Rates