Solar PV Approach Analysis
New York City Housing Authority
FSG Role
Consulting Engineer
Organization Type
Public Housing Authority
Building Type
Mid- and High-rise
Size
49 buildings
3,199,750 square feet
Overview
The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) sought to assess the most cost-effective and scalable strategies for deploying solar photovoltaic (PV) systems across its public housing portfolio. This analysis was conducted to compare the viability of three different models: direct installation, behind-the-meter Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), and roof lease community solar arrangements. Given NYCHA's unique constraints—such as low energy rates through the New York Power Authority (NYPA), public labor requirements, and the challenges of retrofitting multifamily buildings—the goal was to identify deployment pathways that balance financial feasibility, operational simplicity, and long-term benefit.
Historically, NYCHA has pursued community solar through roof lease agreements, where developers install and manage systems in exchange for leasing NYCHA’s rooftop space. These projects provide modest revenue but limited engagement with the energy generated. In contrast, direct installs and PPAs allow NYCHA to directly benefit from solar generation, but come with significant capital costs, technical hurdles, and regulatory complexity. This study focused on analyzing system costs, energy rate impacts, siting strategies, and available incentives, particularly using Queensbridge Houses as a representative site.
The study concluded that buildings on the NYPA 62 rate class—where electricity prices are comparatively higher—represent the most viable opportunities for solar deployment, especially under PPAs or community solar subscription models. These approaches could deliver meaningful financial and environmental returns without requiring NYCHA to shoulder the burdens of ownership and operations. Further investigation is recommended into front-of-meter PPAs and evolving community solar incentives such as the Inclusive Community Solar Adder (ICSA).
Approach and Methodology
The analysis began by evaluating the characteristics and outcomes of NYCHA’s two completed community solar projects, located at Kingsborough, Glenwood, Carver and Queensbridge Houses. These served as baseline examples for the roof lease model, offering insight into lease rates, system configurations, and revenue generation. The Queensbridge Houses site, with a 1.8MW aggregate system using 360W SunPower modules and Unirac RM5 ballasted racking, was selected as a representative case for cost and production modeling.
Cost estimates were based on industry consultation and indicative pricing for NYCHA-typical buildings (generally 6–7 stories), assuming prevailing wage labor and standard rooftop configurations. System costs were modeled to range between $4.00 and $6.00 per watt, with a midpoint of $4.73 used for base-case analysis. Scenarios were modeled against NYCHA’s various NYPA rate classes to determine where direct install or behind-the-meter PPAs could generate savings relative to the cost of utility-supplied power. Roof lease community solar projects were also evaluated with respect to historic lease rates and revenue forecasts.
Critical regulatory and financial factors—including HUD's five-year PPA limit, the potential for PPA nesting within Energy Performance Contracts (EPCs), and the applicability of federal tax credits—were considered. Opportunities to increase value through site aggregation, optimal siting, and rate-class flipping were also explored. Finally, stakeholder input was incorporated regarding NYPA-facilitated front-of-meter PPAs, remote crediting, and community solar subscriber roles under the ICSA.
Results
The primary deliverable was a comprehensive financial and strategic analysis report detailing the feasibility of solar PV system deployment under the three main models: direct install, PPA, and community solar. The analysis determined that direct-install solar PV systems were largely not viable for NYCHA due to high upfront costs, ineligibility for federal tax credits, and the low electricity rates NYCHA paid through NYPA. Only a limited number of buildings on the NYPA 62 rate had electricity costs high enough to make direct-install systems financially feasible over a 20-year period. Systems that sold energy to the grid within LSRV zones appeared somewhat more promising, but overall, direct-installation was considered the least favorable implementation strategy.
Behind-the-meter Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) offered a more appealing alternative, particularly for buildings on the NYPA 62 rate, since NYCHA would not need to finance or maintain the systems. However, achieving PPA rates low enough to undercut NYPA’s electricity prices proved difficult for sites on the 68 and 69 rates unless system costs significantly decreased. NYPA-facilitated front-of-meter PPAs emerged as a potentially better option, allowing developers to sell to the grid and enabling NYCHA to purchase discounted bill credits, though this option required further investigation into specific negotiated rates.
Roof lease community solar projects were also identified as viable, benefiting NYCHA by avoiding maintenance responsibilities. Despite increased rebates for multifamily housing, the elimination of the Community Credit adder reduced expected lease payments. The most promising approach involved using NYPA 62 buildings that were unsuitable for solar installations as anchor subscribers for nearby community solar projects or NYPA-facilitated PPAs. These subscribers could benefit from discounted bill credits, especially when paired with the Inclusive Community Solar Credit. Ultimately, behind-the-meter PPAs for NYPA 62 buildings were deemed the most advantageous option under the current conditions.