Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Geer RD Glare Study - Array #1,2,4 (West) PDF
Geer RD Glare Study - Array #1,2,4 (West) PDF
Technical Memorandum
Executive Summary
Matrix Development, LLC (Matrix) is developing a nominal 18.6 MWdc solar photovoltaic (PV)
project northwest of the intersection of Geer and Underwood Roads in Hudson Falls, NY
referred to as Geer Road WEST. Another project proposed by Matrix located on the opposite
side of Geer Road, which is not the subject of this memorandum, is referred to as Geer Road
EAST.
The Geer Road WEST Project is comprised of three single axis tracking arrays: #1 (6.65 MWdc),
#2 (6.65 MWdc), and #4 (5.28 MWdc). Matrix has engaged Barrett Energy Resources Group
(BERG) to analyze potential impacts of glare from the project on aviation receptors at Floyd
Bennett Memorial Airport (GFL) located in Queensbury approximately 2 miles west of the
project, and receptors close to the project such as motorists and residences.
To complete this work, BERG has utilized the Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Tool (SGHAT) which
was developed by the US Department of Energy for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
to protect aviation sensitive receptors from unintended glare from solar projects. For this
project, SGHAT has been used along with the FAA’s Solar Policy and ocular hazard standard to
evaluate glare on aircraft on final approach to four runway ends at GFL. SGHAT has also been
used to assess potential glare impacts on motorist receptors traveling on Geer and Underwood
Roads and on representative residential receptors in the vicinity of the project.
The modeling reports, which are included as Attachment A for the aviation receptors and
Attachment B for the non-aviation receptors, show no potential glare impacts on any of the
receptors analyzed. This is primarily due to the use of the single axis tracking system which
limits the potential for glare on receptors relatively close to the ground including pilots landing
at the airport runway ends. For aviation receptors, the results demonstrate that the project as
designed meets the FAA’s Solar Policy and ocular hazard standard. This Technical
Memorandum describes the project, methodology, and results.
11/30/2019 1
Barrett Energy Resources Group
PO Box 1004 | Concord, MA 01742 | 339-234-2696
www.barrettenergygroup.com
Project Description
The Geer Road-West Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Project is located on about 100 acres of
undeveloped farmland northwest of the intersection of Geer and Underwood Roads in Hudson
Falls, NY as shown on Figure 1. The project is designed as a single axis tracking array and has a
nameplate capacity of 18.6 MWdc. It is adjacent to another project proposed by Matrix referred
to as Geer Road East.
11/30/2019 2
Barrett Energy Resources Group
PO Box 1004 | Concord, MA 01742 | 339-234-2696
www.barrettenergygroup.com
receptors, the model also produces a highly credible result for evaluating other glare sensitive
receptors such as motor vehicles and residences.
The FAA’s Solar Policy specifies the glare methodology and ocular hazard standard required for
solar PV projects located at airports. For this analysis, BERG used SGHAT version 3 released in
the spring of 2016 under the brand “GlareGauge.” For consistency with the FAA Policy, the
model is referred to herein as SGHAT.
11/30/2019 3
Barrett Energy Resources Group
PO Box 1004 | Concord, MA 01742 | 339-234-2696
www.barrettenergygroup.com
If glare is recorded by the SGHAT model, the predicted intensity of the glare is reported in a
color-coded system at three levels:
The Policy includes an ocular hazard standard which sets forth the intensity of glare using the
color-coded system that is deemed significant and thereby determined to produce a potential
hazard to air navigation. The standard prohibits any glare from impacting the air traffic control
tower (ATCT) (i.e. results with green, yellow or red represent a significant impact), but allows
for a low potential for an after image (green) for pilots on approach to the airport with yellow
and red results representing a significant impact. Table 1 presents the airport sensitive
receptors that must be evaluated for glare using the SGHAT model, the potential results
reported by the model, and whether the result complies with the FAA’s Solar Policy.
Table 1. SGHAT Model Levels of Glare and Compliance with FAA Policy
Airport Sensitive Level of Glare Glare Color Does Result
Receptor Result Comply with FAA
Policy?
1An after-image occurs when you look directly into a bright light, then look away. It typically takes several seconds for your vision to
readjust and return to normal. It is also referred to as a temporary visual disability or flash blindness.
11/30/2019 4
Barrett Energy Resources Group
PO Box 1004 | Concord, MA 01742 | 339-234-2696
www.barrettenergygroup.com
The FAA Policy and ocular hazard standard apply to the assessment of aviation receptors and
are not specifically relevant for the evaluation of glare impacts on other receptors. For non-
aviation receptors, the results are simply used to determine if glare is predicted (any color) or
not (no color).
For the Geer Road West Solar Project, BERG used the PV project polygon tool to draw the
footprint of the solar arrays on SGHAT’s interactive Google map. The specific attributes of the
solar arrays were then input into the model. As the project proposes a single axis tracking array,
SGHAT includes relevant fields for those elements including for this project design: tilt angle of
0°, azimuth orientation of 0°, beginning and ending panel rotational angle of 60°, average
height of 6 feet above ground level (agl), and a panel surface with no anti-reflective coating as a
baseline. Figure 3 is a simple schematic showing how the solar panels track the sun’s position
throughout the day.
11/30/2019 5
Barrett Energy Resources Group
PO Box 1004 | Concord, MA 01742 | 339-234-2696
www.barrettenergygroup.com
Floyd Bennett Airport does not have an air traffic control tower (ATCT); therefore, the only
receptors requiring analysis are the approach pathways associated with the four runway ends.
To analyze the aviation sensitive receptors, BERG activated the flight path tool and selected the
threshold (or end) of the first runway and selected a second point away from the threshold to
represent a straight-on approach pathway, and the model automatically draws the flightpath
from the threshold out to two miles for analysis. This step was repeated for the other three
approach pathways. The model assumes a 3-degree glide path for each runway approach,
which was confirmed for three of the four approach pathways; however, arrivals to Runway 12
are designed for a 3.85-degree glide slope which was used. Figure 4 shows the location of the
solar project, and the two-mile flight paths (in light purple) analyzed in accordance with FAA
methodology.
For the non-aviation analysis, BERG identified representative motor vehicle receptors
associated with the roadways near the project as well as nearby residential receptors. The
11/30/2019 6
Barrett Energy Resources Group
PO Box 1004 | Concord, MA 01742 | 339-234-2696
www.barrettenergygroup.com
model’s observation point tool was used to select individual points located on the Google map.
Four motorist and eight residential locations were analyzed as shown on Figure 5. For the
motorist receptors, the driver’s height above the roadway was set at 5 feet. For the residential
receptors, the viewpoint was set at 5 feet above ground level to represent the view of a person
standing on the property.
For each model run, the glare analysis button was activated, and the model evaluated glare
from various sun angles at 1-minute intervals throughout the year to predict if glare could be
observed by the sensitive receptors.
11/30/2019 7
Barrett Energy Resources Group
PO Box 1004 | Concord, MA 01742 | 339-234-2696
www.barrettenergygroup.com
The single axis tracking system is effective in eliminating potential glare from receptors close to
the ground. This is due first to the design and operational elements where the face of the panel
is always perpendicular to the sun as the sun moves across the sky during the day. The effect is
that the sun’s rays contact the panel and the portion that is reflected returns back toward the
sun and not toward any receptor on the ground. This concept is illustrated in Figure 6.
The second project element of the tracking system that mitigates glare is the starting and
stopping angle of the panels, which for this project is set at 60° (compared to 90° if the panel
continued tracking to the horizon). Because the panels do not extract much energy from the
sun when it is low on the horizon, the tracking system does not remain perpendicular to the sun
at the beginning and end of each day. If it did, the sun may contact the panel surface and reflect
back toward the sun at a low angle and close to the ground. Instead, the panel is already angled
such that any reflection from the rising or setting sun is cast upward and away from the ground.
Once the sun rises to a position in the sky where it is perpendicular to the panel “resting” angle,
the tracking commences. At the end of the day, the panel reaches the same angle where it
started the day, stops tracking, and, as the sun continues to set, any reflection off the panel is
cast upward. This concept is also shown in Figure 6.
Conclusions
Barrett Energy Resources Group (BERG) has utilized the SGHAT modeling tool developed by
the US Department of Energy to assess the potential effects of glare from a solar photovoltaic
(PV) project on both aviation and non-aviation receptors near Matrix Development’s proposed
11/30/2019 8
Barrett Energy Resources Group
PO Box 1004 | Concord, MA 01742 | 339-234-2696
www.barrettenergygroup.com
solar project at Geer and Underwood Roads in Hudson Falls, NY. There are two solar projects
adjacent to each other and the project addressed in this study is referred to as Geer Road West.
The modeling reports, which are included as Attachment A for the aviation receptors and
Attachment B for the non-aviation receptors, show that the project has no potential to produce
glare on aviation and non-aviation receptors. Impacts are fundamentally mitigated by the
single axis tracking system design which directs any reflections back skyward. For aviation
receptors, the results demonstrated that the project as designed meets the FAA’s Solar Policy
and ocular hazard standard.
11/30/2019 9
Barrett Energy Resources Group
PO Box 1004 | Concord, MA 01742 | 339-234-2696
www.barrettenergygroup.com
Attachment A
11/30/2019 10
FORGESOLAR GLARE ANALYSIS
• No "yellow" glare (potential for after-image) for any flight path from threshold to 2 miles
• No glare of any kind for Air Traffic Control Tower(s) ("ATCT") at cab height.
• Default analysis and observer characteristics (see list below)
ForgeSolar does not represent or speak officially for the FAA and cannot approve or deny projects. Results are informational only.
Analysis parameters PASS Analysis time interval and eye characteristics used are acceptable
Flight path(s) PASS Flight path receptor(s) do not receive yellow glare
ATCT(s) N/A No ATCT receptors designated
Default glare analysis parameters and observer eye characteristics (for reference only):
Analysis Parameters
PV Array(s)
Name: Array 2
Axis tracking: Single-axis rotation
Tracking axis orientation: 180.0°
Tracking axis tilt: 0.0°
Tracking axis panel offset: 0.0°
Max tracking angle: 60.0°
Resting angle: 60.0°
Rated power: -
Panel material: Smooth glass without AR coating
Reflectivity: Vary with sun
Slope error: correlate with material
Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft)
Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft)
Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft)
Name: Rwy 1
Description:
Threshold height: 50 ft
Direction: 358.0°
Glide slope: 3.0°
Pilot view restricted? Yes
Vertical view: 30.0°
Azimuthal view: 50.0°
Point Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft)
Point Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft)
Name: Rwy 19
Description:
Threshold height: 50 ft
Direction: 178.0°
Glide slope: 3.0°
Pilot view restricted? Yes
Vertical view: 30.0°
Azimuthal view: 50.0°
Point Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft)
Name: Rwy 30
Description:
Threshold height: 50 ft
Direction: 290.0°
Glide slope: 3.0°
Pilot view restricted? Yes
Vertical view: 30.0°
Azimuthal view: 50.0°
Point Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft)
Summary of Glare
Rwy 1 0 0
Rwy 12 0 0
Rwy 19 0 0
Rwy 30 0 0
Rwy 1 0 0
Rwy 12 0 0
Rwy 19 0 0
Rwy 30 0 0
Rwy 1 0 0
Rwy 12 0 0
Rwy 19 0 0
Rwy 30 0 0
Rwy 1 0 0
Rwy 12 0 0
Receptor Green Glare (min) Yellow Glare (min)
Rwy 19 0 0
Rwy 30 0 0
Assumptions
"Green" glare is glare with low potential to cause an after-image (flash blindness) when observed prior to a typical blink response time.
"Yellow" glare is glare with potential to cause an after-image (flash blindness) when observed prior to a typical blink response time.
Times associated with glare are denoted in Standard time. For Daylight Savings, add one hour.
Glare analyses do not account for physical obstructions between reflectors and receptors. This includes buildings, tree cover and
geographic obstructions.
Several calculations utilize the PV array centroid, rather than the actual glare spot location, due to algorithm limitations. This may affect
results for large PV footprints. Additional analyses of array sub-sections can provide additional information on expected glare.
The subtended source angle (glare spot size) is constrained by the PV array footprint size. Partitioning large arrays into smaller sections
will reduce the maximum potential subtended angle, potentially impacting results if actual glare spots are larger than the sub-array size.
Additional analyses of the combined area of adjacent sub-arrays can provide more information on potential glare hazards. (See previous
point on related limitations.)
Glare locations displayed on receptor plots are approximate. Actual glare-spot locations may differ.
Glare vector plots are simplified representations of analysis data. Actual glare emanations and results may differ.
The glare hazard determination relies on several approximations including observer eye characteristics, angle of view, and typical blink
response time. Actual results and glare occurrence may differ.
Hazard zone boundaries shown in the Glare Hazard plot are an approximation and visual aid based on aggregated research data. Actual
ocular impact outcomes encompass a continuous, not discrete, spectrum.
Attachment B
11/30/2019 11
11/30/2019 Preferred Design Site Config | ForgeSolar
Component Data
PV Array(s)
https://www.forgesolar.com/projects/6210/configs/33810/ 1/6
11/30/2019 Preferred Design Site Config | ForgeSolar
Name: Array 2
Axis tracking: Single-axis rotation Ground Height above Total
Vertex Latitude Longitude elevation ground elevation
Tracking axis orientation: 180.0 deg
Tracking axis tilt: 0.0 deg
Tracking axis panel offset: 0.0 deg deg deg ft ft ft
Maximum tracking angle: 60.0 deg
1 43.361096 -73.562376 291.01 6.00 297.01
Resting angle: 60.0 deg
2 43.360440 -73.568041 293.40 6.00 299.40
Rated power: -
Panel material: Smooth glass without 3 43.358880 -73.567526 288.33 6.00 294.33
AR coating 4 43.358880 -73.566625 288.36 6.00 294.36
Vary reflectivity with sun position? 5 43.359036 -73.565251 286.19 6.00 292.19
Yes 6 43.359910 -73.565423 288.47 6.00 294.47
Correlate slope error with surface
7 43.359972 -73.564178 288.97 6.00 294.97
type? Yes
8 43.357851 -73.564135 286.99 6.00 292.99
Slope error: 6.55 mrad
9 43.357632 -73.563191 310.36 6.00 316.36
10 43.358818 -73.562548 311.54 6.00 317.54
11 43.360159 -73.562633 291.86 6.00 297.86
Name: PV array 2
Axis tracking: Single-axis rotation Ground Height above Total
Vertex Latitude Longitude elevation ground elevation
Tracking axis orientation: 180.0 deg
Tracking axis tilt: 0.0 deg
Tracking axis panel offset: 0.0 deg deg deg ft ft ft
Maximum tracking angle: 60.0 deg
1 43.358506 -73.567182 287.73 6.00 293.73
Resting angle: 60.0 deg
2 43.357382 -73.567140 289.98 6.00 295.98
Rated power: -
Panel material: Smooth glass without 3 43.353451 -73.565895 277.65 6.00 283.65
AR coating 4 43.353388 -73.565080 275.40 6.00 281.40
Vary reflectivity with sun position? 5 43.354761 -73.565165 279.67 6.00 285.67
Yes 6 43.354824 -73.564393 280.69 6.00 286.69
Correlate slope error with surface
7 43.353888 -73.564307 270.59 6.00 276.59
type? Yes
8 43.353888 -73.563621 266.94 6.00 272.94
Slope error: 6.55 mrad
9 43.356509 -73.564221 276.03 6.00 282.03
10 43.358568 -73.565251 284.42 6.00 290.42
https://www.forgesolar.com/projects/6210/configs/33810/ 2/6
11/30/2019 Preferred Design Site Config | ForgeSolar
Name: PV array 3
Axis tracking: Single-axis rotation Ground Height above Total
Vertex Latitude Longitude elevation ground elevation
Tracking axis orientation: 180.0 deg
Tracking axis tilt: 0.0 deg
Tracking axis panel offset: 0.0 deg deg deg ft ft ft
Maximum tracking angle: 60.0 deg
1 43.359945 -73.562052 303.34 6.00 309.34
Resting angle: 60.0 deg
2 43.357355 -73.562953 312.84 6.00 318.84
Rated power: -
Panel material: Smooth glass without 3 43.355935 -73.563210 295.35 6.00 301.35
AR coating 4 43.354250 -73.563339 283.31 6.00 289.31
Vary reflectivity with sun position? 5 43.354313 -73.562374 285.28 6.00 291.28
Yes 6 43.355873 -73.561880 310.78 6.00 316.78
Correlate slope error with surface
7 43.355920 -73.561515 306.32 6.00 312.32
type? Yes
8 43.356840 -73.561258 315.07 6.00 321.07
Slope error: 6.55 mrad
9 43.356903 -73.560914 312.29 6.00 318.29
10 43.358135 -73.560678 321.57 6.00 327.57
11 43.358244 -73.561129 326.39 6.00 332.39
12 43.358931 -73.560936 324.64 6.00 330.64
13 43.358931 -73.560464 325.47 6.00 331.47
14 43.360117 -73.560249 323.10 6.00 329.10
deg deg ft ft ft
https://www.forgesolar.com/projects/6210/configs/33810/ 3/6
11/30/2019 Preferred Design Site Config | ForgeSolar
PV Array Results
Array 2
OP: OP 1 0 0
OP: OP 2 0 0
OP: OP 3 0 0
OP: OP 4 0 0
OP: OP 5 0 0
OP: OP 6 0 0
OP: OP 7 0 0
OP: OP 8 0 0
OP: OP 9 0 0
OP: OP 10 0 0
OP: OP 11 0 0
OP: OP 12 0 0
PV array 2
OP: OP 1 0 0
OP: OP 2 0 0
OP: OP 3 0 0
OP: OP 4 0 0
OP: OP 5 0 0
OP: OP 6 0 0
OP: OP 7 0 0
OP: OP 8 0 0
OP: OP 9 0 0
OP: OP 10 0 0
OP: OP 11 0 0
OP: OP 12 0 0
PV array 3
https://www.forgesolar.com/projects/6210/configs/33810/ 4/6
11/30/2019 Preferred Design Site Config | ForgeSolar
OP: OP 1 0 0
OP: OP 2 0 0
OP: OP 3 0 0
OP: OP 4 0 0
OP: OP 5 0 0
OP: OP 6 0 0
OP: OP 7 0 0
OP: OP 8 0 0
OP: OP 9 0 0
OP: OP 10 0 0
OP: OP 11 0 0
OP: OP 12 0 0
https://www.forgesolar.com/projects/6210/configs/33810/ 5/6
11/30/2019 Preferred Design Site Config | ForgeSolar
Assumptions
Times associated with glare are denoted in Standard time. For Daylight Savings, add one hour.
Glare analyses do not account for physical obstructions between reflectors and receptors. This includes buildings,
tree cover and geographic obstructions.
Detailed system geometry is not rigorously simulated.
The glare hazard determination relies on several approximations including observer eye characteristics, angle of
view, and typical blink response time. Actual values and results may vary.
Several calculations utilize the PV array centroid, rather than the actual glare spot location, due to algorithm
limitations. This may affect results for large PV footprints. Additional analyses of array sub-sections can provide
additional information on expected glare.
The subtended source angle (glare spot size) is constrained by the PV array footprint size. Partitioning large arrays
into smaller sections will reduce the maximum potential subtended angle, potentially impacting results if actual glare
spots are larger than the sub-array size. Additional analyses of the combined area of adjacent sub-arrays can
provide more information on potential glare hazards. (See previous point on related limitations.)
Hazard zone boundaries shown in the Glare Hazard plot are an approximation and visual aid. Actual ocular impact
outcomes encompass a continuous, not discrete, spectrum.
Glare locations displayed on receptor plots are approximate. Actual glare-spot locations may differ.
Glare vector plots are simplified representations of analysis data. Actual glare emanations and results may differ.
Refer to the Help page for assumptions and limitations not listed here.
https://www.forgesolar.com/projects/6210/configs/33810/ 6/6