Renewable Energy Massachusetts LLC

Massachusetts: a Good Solar Market

Several important factors are expected to contribute to the growth of Massachusetts solar photovoltaic (PV) development over the next decade:

Cost: Massachusetts has among the most expensive energy in the United States, which positions solar as a competitive energy source

Energy Price Hedge: Close to 40% of Massachusetts’ electricity load comes from volatile natural gas.  Solar power hedges exposure to volatile gas-fired electricity costs, which rose dramatically in 2007-08 and, over the 25-year lifespan of a PV system, are likely to rise again due to increasing energy demand and potential geopolitical events

Solar Yield: The “capacity factor”(footnote1) for Massachusetts solar facilities is in the range of 13-15%, meaning that a 2MW ground-mounted, fixed-tilt PV system positioned at a 35 degree tilt would produce 2.3-2.6 million kilowatt hours (kWh) each year.  This equates to approximately 75% of the solar yield of California PV facilities, where capacity factors are 17-20%

Proven Solar Facilities: Massachusetts solar energy yield is proven at the following facilities operating in the Commonwealth:

Site DC KW Size Description Time Period(1) Capacity Factor(2)
Brockton Brightfield

Brockton, MA

 465KW 35 degree ground mount 1/30/09-1/29/10 14.69%
Chapman Construction

Newton, MA

 46.8KW 45 degree roof mounted 2009 full year 14.6%
Hannaford’s Supermarket

Lowell, MA

 64.8KW 10 degree roof mount

4″ clearance (panel to roof)

 2009 full year 13.39% (3)

Capacity Factor Notes:

  1. MA solar yield data is from 2009, which experienced unusually rainy conditions in June/July 2009 and heavy snow during winter 2009.
  2. “Capacity factor” measures the annual efficiency of energy generation facilities, specifically the actual percentage that a facility produces at its maximum rated power capacity as measured over 365 days/24 hours per year. By comparison, the capacity factor for Coal is 95+%, while that of Rhode Island offshore wind is estimated at 40%.
  3. Unlike ground-mounted PV systems with 35-degree pitches and over 4 feet of ground clearance, the Lowell Hannaford’s rooftop PV system has a comparatively lower yield because: (a) the Hannaford system’s 10-degree pitch, which is designed to maximize the number of panels on the roof, and (b) the low 4-inch panel clearance minimizes the roof-mounted system’s snow-shedding ability
  4. Data is obtained from real-time, public host sites monitored continuously at FatSpaniel.com