Official Site of the U.S. Air Force   Right Corner Banner
Join the Air Force

News > Large solar array planned for Davis-Monthan AFB
Story at a Glance
 Air Force signs a deal to build its largest solar array to date on 170 acres of land in Arizona.
 The project will be operational by the end of the 2012, will produce 35 percent of the energy needed to power Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, and will save the Air Force up to $500,000 a year.
Large solar array planned for Davis-Monthan AFB

Posted 8/19/2012   Updated 10/5/2012 Email story   Print story

    


by Jennifer Elmore
Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency Public Affairs


8/19/2012 - TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. (AFNS) -- The Air Force plans to expand its renewable energy portfolio substantially with a 14.5-megawatt photovoltaic solar array at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz. The base has entered into an agreement with SunEdison, LLC to design, finance, build, operate and maintain the array on 170 acres of underutilized base property. Construction will begin soon with completion planned for no later than December 2012.

The power purchase agreement provides electricity to Davis-Monthan at a reduced rate for a period of 25 years saving the base from $400,000 to $500,000 a year in utility costs. The project will provide 35 percent of the energy needed to power Davis-Monthan. It will be slightly larger than the Nellis AFB, Nev., photovoltaic solar array built in 2007.

According to Ken Gray, the Rates and Renewables Branch Chief at the Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency, Tyndall AFB, Fla., the array has to be built and generating electricity by the end of the year.

"The project as it was conceived, contracted and offered to us is only viable and can only be done cost effectively for SunEdison if they can participate in a program to sell the Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) to Tucson Electric Power. That program ends the 31st of December 2012," said Gray.

Purchasing RECs helps Tucson Electric Power meet state renewable portfolio standards and receive federal tax incentives. A REC is sold or traded as an environmental commodity. The REC owner is credited with purchasing renewable energy.

The Air Force currently operates 131 solar, wind, waste-to-energy and landfill gas projects, which help meet goals established by the Energy Policy Act 2005 and Executive Order 13423. It has plans to build 30 new projects by the end of 2013 - not an easy task.

The Davis-Monthan solar array required the first Department of Defense approval for an Air Force project of this type. Gray said complying with the National Environmental Policy Act, known as NEPA, process is also challenging in Arizona where many historical Native American areas exist.

"Getting this project through the developmental stage has highlighted to us areas where we need to improve our process of garnering approval and authority to do our renewable energy projects," said Gray. "We think lessons learned during the development of this project will allow us to shorten execution time to six months." Planning the Davis-Monthan solar array began in 2010.

The Air Force is also planning a six-megawatt solar array at Otis Air National Guard Base, Mass., and a 10-megawatt solar array at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, N.J. "We expect to have these awarded in FY13," said Gray.



tabComments
8/30/2012 2:21:00 PM ET
Hmmmm can you say Solyndra
Skeptical, DC
 
8/24/2012 12:43:34 PM ET
And to CJ comment on top... I agree with your assertion we have an oil crisis. However how many barrels of oil does a solar panel displace We have an oil crisis not electricity crisis. Politicians need to stop mixing up the different types and stop calling it an energy crisis... they are not equivalent problems. We dont have a shortage of coal nuclear natural gas water wind and sun. Plus all these are American. Lets stop thinking more electricity will solve the oil problem and focus on energy storage andor an alternative fuel. Note Oil products are one of the leading causes of pollution in the US too. You want to create American jobs and get 4 percent of our GDP back get off the oil addiction. Solar panels are not even addressing the same problem. Not to say I am against solar when it makes sense looks like it will be a good deal for DM but dont be naive and think it is helping the oil problem.
Kevin, Florida
 
8/24/2012 12:39:14 PM ET
From my understanding of a power purchase agreement it is the company pays for the project and the government agrees to give them land and buy the power from them. Which means no cost to government other than hopefully reduced electricity rate. The company then sells electricity to the government and green paint or credits to Tucson Electric. Now the government can take credit for being green and so can Tucson Electric.
Kevin, Florida
 
8/23/2012 6:47:41 AM ET
@Jerry - While it currently may not be the most cost effective thing to do in the long term it will be. Oil wells are being drained faster than they can replenish themselves. When oil wells start drying up without out new wells being found to replace them gas prices will continue to rise and it'll look real cost effective then. This is a long term game. But who cares We'll be dead by the time that happens so it's not our problem....right
CJ, TX
 
8/21/2012 12:13:45 PM ET
Notice the comment The project as it was conceived contracted and offered to us is only viable and can only be done cost effectively for SunEdison if they can participate in a program to sell the Renewable Energy Certificates RECs to Tucson Electric Power. So it is not really cost effective except for the government causing it to be by creating a market place. That means the energy created by this is more expensive than other forms of energy otherwise no so called energy credits. It may or may not be the right thing to do but it is not the cost effective thing to do.
Jerry , Oklahoma
 
8/21/2012 11:41:54 AM ET
Mark - what is the cost to the Earth and the environment if we just keep using conventional energy Will your great grandkids be able to breath without respitory problemsAnd-how much do you want the AF to pay for fuels which are costing more each year Not to mention the dependency on foreign powers for that energy...Our great contry will never be as great as it could be if we are forever dependent on SuadiIraqiMiddle Eastern oil...
BA, FLA
 
8/20/2012 9:05:06 AM ET
@Mike Your analysis is flawed. Capital investment decisions are not simply years cash flow. Typically the discounted cash flow is used to assess a capital investment. Assuming a discount rate of 4 percent the net present value of this project is 6M to 7M.
JD, DC
 
8/20/2012 8:41:36 AM ET
Everybody loves jumping on the expensive alternative energy bandwagon. This alternative energy is far far more expensive then conventional energy and will never pay for itself.
Mark, USA
 
8/20/2012 3:58:59 AM ET
This is a great idea if the development construction and maintenance over the next 25 years cost 12.5M or less. But since that figure isn't in the article I assume someone thought of that.
Mike, Overseas
 
Add a comment

 Inside AF.mil

ima cornerSearch

tabSubscribe AF.MIL
tabMore HeadlinesRSS feed 
Airmen rally to help save lives

Lost Johnny Carson film found at March

Brig. Gen. Witham nominated as ANG deputy director

AFPC Airman: Don't forget, they're not all home

Muncy Honored With Second Highest Private Citizen Award

AF nominates AFMC, AFSPC civilians for DOD award

Air Force medical treatment facilities not involved in multi-state meningitis outbreak

Hundreds on October supplemental promotion list

Construction of second runway continues at Osan, South Korea  |  VIDEO

Air Force Week in Photos

'Vortex surfing' could be revolutionary  1

Tail swap enables Afghan mission support and humanitarian effort

Fort Smith ANG Airmen Head Home   |  VIDEO

1952 C-124 crash descendant finds closure in Alaska  1

tabCommentaryRSS feed 
Standards? What standards?   3

First things first: Get your degrees in order  34


Site Map      Contact Us     Questions     Security and Privacy notice     E-publishing