James KingGEOG 442Final Research Paper

Ellensburg Community Solar: Accessibility and Improvement

INTRODUCTION:

The Ellensburg Community Solar park (ECS), which first began generating power in

2006, is a unique and innovative approach to distributed solar power generation. Though small in

size, the ECS project has accomplished much more than can be measured in kilo-Watt hours

(kWh). The project itself sought to overcome some of the obstacles which face consumers who

wish to transition to solar technology, though the overall success of the project has not been fully

studied. Beginning with the main goal of the project, to provide renewable energy options to

customers who otherwise may have no viable choice, this research seeks to understand the

degree to which the ECS park has expanded this access. While options were opened to many

Ellensburg residents, as will be shown, this widening of access was almost certainly distributed

unevenly. Monetary restrictions, for example, seem to be an obstacle which inevitably produces

a degree of uneven distribution of access since individuals with more wealth are more likely to

participate in high-cost endeavors. As such, analyzing the impact on accessibility of low-income

communities, college students, and other groups in Ellensburg may reveal patterns of lack of

access.

In order to understand these interactions, I analyze the basic impacts of the solar park on

energy costs, availability, and sovereignty in the City of Ellensburg. I then attempt to identify

groups which may lack access, what impediments might be preventing these groups from

participation, and what may be causing these impediments. The overall goal of the research is to

1

assess the future potential of the City to expand renewable energy options to customers,

especially those who may be currently experiencing restrictions.

In this research paper, I begin with an overview of the organization of Ellensburg’s

municipal electric utilities, demonstrating the decision-making processes, energy allocation

methods, and overall services they provide to customers. I then outline the historical

development of the ECS park, focusing on the motivation for implementation and the growth of

the site. Initial impacts of the ECS project are then analyzed, assessing the data to search for

changes in energy costs or availability, impacts on relations between city utilities and other

entities, and the overall effect of the ECS project on the energy sovereignty of the city of

Ellensburg.

The research then turns toward impediments and obstacles facing the adoption and

implementation of solar technology in Ellensburg. United States census data is analyzed in order

to identify groups within the city which may currently be experiencing issues of accessibility in

regards to solar technology in general, as well as issues specific to the ECS project itself. The

next section provides an overview of the most common impediments to solar technology found

in the literature, focusing on two relevant categories of obstacles to solar: (1) those obstacles

which the ECS project has overcome or reduced and (2) obstacles which remain to be addressed

under the ECS model of community solar generation.

This paper ends with an overview of the successes of the ECS park in terms of

overcoming obstacles and improving access to renewable technologies. The conclusion analyzes

the current state of accessibility within the park as well as identifies areas where potential

improvement can occur. Some suggestions for improvement are put forward, providing potential

2

pathways or considerations which may be implemented in the future in order to expand interest,

accessibility, and efficacy of future solar projects within the City of Ellensburg.

PROJECT BACKGROUND:

Ellensburg Electric Utilities:

The City of Ellensburg, founded in 1875 (City of Ellensburg 2016a), became the first

municipality in Washington State to privatize electric utilities in 1892 (City of Ellensburg

2016b), after purchasing the system from resident John Shoudy (City of Ellensburg 2016a). A

municipal utility is a utilities entity which is owned and operated by the city in which it

functions. Duffey-Armstrong and Armstrong (1979:11) note that “Municipal power systems are

controlled by a local city governing board or council, either directly or through a city manager

who reports directly to that board or council.” For Ellensburg, this takes the form of the

Ellensburg Energy Services Department. This entity answers directly to City Council,

themselves made up of officials elected within the city, who decide all rate adjustments, policy

changes, fuel allocation mixtures, and so on (Ellensburg Energy Services Department 2016).

City Council meetings are open to public comment, all minutes and meeting overviews are made

available online, and city officials make a concerted effort to be open and accessible via

telephone and e-mail.

Ellensburg Utilities provides electricity, natural gas, telecommunications, water and

sewer services to residents within city limits (City of Ellensburg 2016c). Electricity is provided

to an estimated 9,200 customers (City of Ellensburg 2016d) at a rate of $0.0593 cents per kWh,

the lowest rate in Kittitas County (City of Ellensburg 2016b). As a municipal utility, Ellensburg

Electric Utilities is non-profit, so all accrued funds pay for acquisition of energy, distribution,

and maintenance of energy-related infrastructure (Energy Services Department 2016). All power

3

attained by the city is purchased from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) at around

$0.035 cents (Energy Services Department 2016). The city’s fuel mix from BPA is provided

below, showing that over 85% of the electricity comes from hydropower sources:

Fig. 1: (City of Ellensburg 2014).

History of the Ellensburg Community Solar Park:

The ECS Park was first conceived of in 2004, when utilities staff attended the Northwest

Solar Conference in Portland, Oregon (Hay 2006). The goal of the conference was to generate

innovative new ways to overcome obstacles associated with solar technology. City staff began

formulating the concept and structure of the project, then began seeking support and cooperation

from local groups. At this stage, many partners were brought in including: (1) Ellensburg City

Council, (2) the Bonneville Environmental Foundation [a sub-group under the Bonneville Power

4

Administration], (3) Northwest SEED and others (Energy Services Department 2016). One

innovative aspect of the project was the funding. Community financial support forms an essential

part of the ECS project. Initially, the ECS was to be 23 kW in size, and City Council asked

utilities staff to receive $50,000 in investment pledges from the community for the project to

proceed. After receiving $119,000 in community pledges from 73 individuals (Energy Services

Department 2016), Phase 1 of the project was completed in November 2006 (Farrell 2010) to

generate a total of 36 kW (Nystedt 2012). At the time of planning and construction, there were

no state or federal incentives in place for renewable technologies (Johnston 2007). There was a

renewable rebate available, but as a non-profit entity, Ellensburg Utilities was not able to qualify

(Farrell 2010). Shortly after the park began operation, a trend of decreasing costs spread

throughout the solar industry (Swearingen 2015).

Phase 2 of the project was completed in February 2009. 72 panels were added (Solar

Washington 2016), producing an additional 21.6 kW (Northwest Community Energy 2009;

Nystedt 2012). Central Washington University [CWU] assisted this expansion, purchasing a

stake in the park through a $120,000 grant (Energy Services Department 2016). In December

2009, Phase 3 was completed, consisting of 180 thin-film panels adding 24 kW to the park

(Northwest Community Energy 2009). These thin-film panels were of a different material than

those previously installed, and were chosen partially to gather data on efficiency. Other utilities,

especially those in Western Washington, were interested in thin-film technology, since these

panels have been shown to be more efficient at producing power during cloudy weather (Energy

Services Department 2016). Puget Sound Energy [PSE] and Seattle City Lights, two Western

Washington utilities, invested $50,000 in the project. The Kittitas County Public Utilities

5

Department contributed an additional $35,000 during this phase (Energy Services Department

2016).

Phase 4 began in late 2014, and is expected to be completed around September 2016

(Energy Services Department 2016). An additional 5th Phase has been proposed, and grant-

writing is underway in partnership with CWU (Energy Services Department 2016). The Energy

Services Department is planning on hiring a marketing specialist to work with the city and

utilities to publicize the park and generate community interest and involvement (Energy Services

Department 2016). Ellensburg’s City Council is highly supportive of the project, and expansion

is expected to continue as funds are gathered. Since the creation of the park, an experimental

wind farm has also been installed on site consisting of 9 turbines (Rowbotham 2015) generating

17.6 kW and testing the efficiency of multiple turbine designs (Nystedt 2012).

In 2015, the city began considering new rate options in order to expand the solar park and

aid in covering maintenance and other costs. After deliberation with utilities staff, solar park

investors, and the Ellensburg-local environmental group Our Environment, a new voluntary rate

was established (Matarrese 2015). Under this new approach, customers can choose to pay an

additional $2.50 each month on their power bill, which guarantees them 100 kWh of renewable

electricity generated from the ECS park (Energy Services Department 2016). The park generates

the electricity whether or not customers choose to participate, and all the electricity generated by

the park [less than 0.01% of total Ellensburg’s energy use (Energy Services Department 2016)]

is consumed within the city (Energy Services Department 2016). As such, when customers

choose to participate in the program, they are volunteering to pay an average of 7 times the

normal rate of electricity (Swearingen 2015) in order to guarantee that 100 kWh is locally-

produced renewable electricity.

6

IMPACTS OF THE ECS PROJECT:

This section will analyze the potential impacts that the solar park may have had since its’

inception. In particular, I focus on changes in the energy sovereignty of Ellensburg, the

availability of energy to customers of Ellensburg utilities, the cost of energy to customers, and in

relationships between Ellensburg utilities and other actors.

Ellensburg’s Energy Sovereignty:

As mentioned, all electricity produced by the park is consumed within the city. An

average of 185 million kWh is consumed in Ellensburg annually, and the park contributes only

111 kW of that (Nystedt 2012). As such, Ellensburg must still purchase over 99.95% of its

energy from BPA. In conclusion, the park has had a negligible impact on the energy sovereignty

of the City of Ellensburg.

Energy Availability to Ellensburg Utilities Customers:

Again, the power generated by the park is small. The ECS project has thus done little to

affect the availability of energy within the city. It has neither contributed significant amounts of

power to the grid nor altered energy flows (Energy Services Department 2016).

Costs to Ellensburg Utilities Customers:

Throughout each phase, community contributions have been voluntary. No additional

taxes or fees have been incurred on customers, unless they willingly choose to make a

contribution (Energy Services Department 2016). So while an impact is certainly present, it is

not evenly or unfairly distributed amongst customers.

Relationships With Other Groups:

The ECS project brought together many organizations and groups from the Ellensburg

area and beyond. BPA, PSE, U.S. Department of Energy, Northwest SEED, Our Environment,

7

CWU, and others all contributed in some way or another (Energy Services Department 2016).

Throughout the process, relations have remained positive and constructive, and helped to pave

the way for further cooperation and partnerships.

Fig. 2: Representation of how actors within a community can come together to promote

community solar technology (Noll, Dawes and Rai 2014).

8

ANALYSIS OF ELLENSBURG DEMOGRAPHICS:

In order to understand what impediments may be present in Ellensburg, it is important to

analyze the demographic characteristics of the population. For this analysis, data from the United

States Census Bureau is used to quantitatively identify potential groups which may be currently

experiencing problems of access to the ECS park. For reference, the total population of

Ellensburg in 2014 was 18,774 (United States Census Bureau 2014).

Groups With Potential Lack of Access to ECS:

Low-income and Poverty Communities: According to census data from 2014, 38.8% of

residents in the city are considered ‘in poverty’, compared to the Washington State average of

13.2% (United States Census Bureau 2014). Admittedly, this data is skewed by the high

population of students attending CWU, who surely affect the median income as well as other

data points used in this calculation. However, for purposes of this project, the causes of the lack

of funds are not as important as the lack of funds itself, as those with little to no disposable

income are unlikely to volunteer to pay premium rates for renewable energy.

Students and On-Campus Residents: The voluntary payment and investment systems

operate through a customer’s power bill. On the CWU campus, residence halls and on-campus

apartments handle utility bills, including electricity. As such, students living on campus do not

have the option to participate in the ECS program.

Renters: For those who do not own their homes, installing rooftop solar is not an option.

These residents are perfect target groups for the ECS project. According to 2014 data, 30.1% of

residents live in a home that they own [WA State average: 62.7%], meaning 69.9% are renting or

in some other living arrangement (United States Census Bureau 2014). In addition, 53% live in

9

the same housing unit as the previous year, compared to the 82.6% average of Washington State

(United States Census Bureau 2014), showing a high rate of mobility.

Other Potentially Affected Groups: In addition to those mentioned above, other groups

which may be experiencing impediments to access include: the 9.7% of residents belonging to

Hispanic and Latino communities (United States Census Bureau 2014), elderly residents over the

age of 65 years of age who make up 8.9% of Ellensburg’s population (United States Census

Bureau 2014) which may reveal information about income [pensions, Social Security,

Medicare,etc.] as well as home ownership [renting, owning, retirement home/assisted living,

etc.], and the 7.9% of residents who are registered as disabled which may reveal issues of income

or access (United States Census Bureau 2014).

IMPEDIMENTS TO SOLAR:

This section will provide an overview of the most common and relevant impediments

encountered in the utilization and promotion of solar photovoltaic [PV] technologies. I start with

the impediments which the park has already helped to overcome, then move to those which still

pose an issue to renewables-oriented utilities customers.

Impediments Already Addressed by ECS:

Aesthetic Issues: Many individuals dislike the visual appearance of solar panels, and are

hesitant or resistant to installing them on their homes or property (Duffey-Armstrong and Duffey

1979). The ECS park placed the panels in a location away from the investors residence,

appealing to sentiments of ‘NIMBY’, or not-in-my-back-yard, and moves the panels to a location

with little or no visual value (Energy Services Department 2016).

Legal Issues of Land Use, Permitting, etc.: In many states and counties, current land-

use policies and regulations are not written to include statutes for solar installation (Duffey-

10

Armstrong and Armstrong 1979; Artale and Dobos 2015). As such, many zoning codes,

permitting laws, land-use policies and other regulations are being updated by state and city

officials to reflect this emerging technology. In addition to legislation, the permitting process can

be time-consuming and financially burdensome. Fees are often associated with the process,

including connecting one’s system to the power grid (Benmar 2010; Himmelman 2012). The

ECS park has reduced this challenge by passing the permitting, licensing, and so on to the city.

To sign up, customers need only tell the city they wish to participate and pay the proper fees.

Fig. 3: Map of U.S. States’ status of legislation regarding solar parks and land-use.

11

Financial Burdens: Financing solar technology continues to be a challenge to many who

wish to transition to solar energy (Duffey-Armstrong and Duffey 1979). High up-front costs are

associated with PV systems, and many Americans cannot justify making an investment of this

magnitude. The ECS has mitigated some of this burden. The initial phase of the project required

an investment minimum of $250, and many were upwards of several thousand (Energy Services

Department 2016), significantly less than an individual solar installation. This has allowed

people who want to contribute but cannot afford entire systems to participate. Going beyond this,

the voluntary $2.50 block rate has widened accessibility by reducing the minimum investment to

$2.50 a month (Energy Services Department 2016). Customers may now choose to contribute

$2.50 for one block, $10.00 for 4 blocks, $25.00 for 10 blocks, and so on. This gives flexibility

to contribute as little or as much as desired each month, and this can be increased or reduced on a

monthly basis.

Economies of Scale: As is true for many technologies, the cost efficiency of solar

improves with the size of the system being installed. Buying a large PV system, say for

community use, often costs much less than the same amount of power generation split into

several home-sized systems (Duffey-Armstrong and Duffey 1979). One large 100 kW PV system

will cost less than installing ten 10 kW systems. ECS has increased the ability to utilize this

economy of scale, by allowing a cooperative investment pool. This strategy is seen in many

neighborhoods, downtown business associations, and communities who pool resources together

for certain large investments so that everyone may benefit from economies of scale.

Resistance from Utilities: Many utility companies are dependent upon the sale of energy

for profits, and it is natural that they would be resistant to alternatives which threaten their

economic strength. If individuals are free to generate power at will, there is little room for energy

12

companies to make a profit (Duffey-Armstrong and Duffey 1979; Talbot and Morgan 1981).

Utility companies are not inherently opposed to solar or renewables, however centralization is

expensive and inefficient for these technologies when compared to centralized systems using

fossil fuels. Coal or natural gas plants are relatively inexpensive and more efficient than a

centralized solar technology plant of a similar capacity (Duffey-Armstrong and Duffey 1979).

Ellensburg, enjoying a municipally controlled utilities department, has little resistance from

utilities. Ellensburg’s utilities is non-profit, and thus does not feel as threatened by the potential

of locally-generated solar electricity.

Warranty Issues: The technology necessary for a PV system of any size tends to be

expensive. Homeowners considering this technology face substantial risk by purchasing these

systems. According to Duffey-Armstrong and Duffey (1979), the majority of solar technology

retailers offered warranties up to one year after purchase. For a system which can take ten years

to pay off, that can be rather short. However, many states have been considering requiring

minimum warranties of five years for solar retailers in order to provide a safety net and

incentive. The ECS park again mitigates this challenge by allowing the city to take the risk rather

than individuals. If something happens to the system, the city can wait until they generate the

funds to make necessary repairs. No individual is at a financial loss, no one must go without

power while repairs are made, and the city handles all the details.

Fragmentation Among Actors: The current trend of segmentation between actors

involved in solar technology can serve to slow or prevent solar transitions (Duffey-Armstrong

and Duffey 1979). There is often little communication between government agencies, solar

companies, non-government organizations, and others involved in the process of framing and

implementing effective solar policy. The ECS park has addressed this by bringing together

13

necessary agents on behalf of consumers. Fragmentation of communication may continue to be a

problem for the city, however.

Lack of Adequate Siting: Arguably the most common impediment to solar technology is

the lack of a proper site or of control to develop a site (Benmar 2010; Boyle 2012; Swearingen

2015). Some factors which make a home or location unsuitable for solar technology include

improper orientation and excessive shade from obstacles. The National Renewable Energy

Laboratory estimates that 49% of U.S. homes and 48% of businesses are not suitable for

photovoltaic systems (Artale and Dobos 2015). In addition to physical obstacles, socioeconomic

factors can also make a site unsuitable. In some locations, city or state building codes may

prevent modification to install panels. Renters, those who lease, apartment residents, and others

may lack control to make modifications to their residences, or will not be inhabiting the housing

unit long enough for a solar investment to be prudent. The ECS park has mitigated these

challenges by allowing residents who live in unsuitable areas to participate by investing in the

park, which already has a suitable and city-controlled locale.

Impediments Not Yet Addressed (Or Fully Addressed) by ECS:

Politics of Energy Production: Once electricity is transmitted onto the power grid, it

becomes part of the public domain (Williams 2014). This means regardless of where the energy

came from, it becomes subject to government and corporate control (Talbot and Morgan 1981;

Himmelman 2012; Williams 2014). Large public and private entities such as BPA and the

Department of Energy operate the majority of transmission lines in the Western United States,

and thus dictate much of the policy and use-rights which affect electricity generation.

Electricity is Already Available: In many locations, especially in Washington State,

cheap sources of electricity are readily available to consumers, discouraging some from pursuing

14

other options which may be cleaner, but more costly (Williams 2014). In Washington State this

issue becomes even more apparent, since much of the state has access to relatively clean and

cheap electricity generated through hydropower sources.

Distrust of Utilities Actors: Many regions have shown a distrust of energy distributors,

most notably large, privately operated entities (Duffey-Armstrong and Duffey 1979; Talbot and

Morgan 1981). This distrust could result from association with corporate management, or may

derive from the fact that they operate for profit. Regardless of the causes, a lack of trust results in

reduced support from the community, including support for renewable projects such as ECS.

Ellensburg, with a publicly owned utilities department, avoids much of this distrust, though these

sentiments may still be present to some degree.

Social Norms, Perceptions, and Public Attitudes: For decades, there have been

assumptions made by the public as to the efficacy of solar technologies (Duffey-Armstrong and

Duffey 1979; Himmelman 2012). The volatile performance of some solar companies has left the

public feeling uneasy, particularly after the failure of the government-backed solar company

Solyndra (Himmelman 2012; Williams 2014; Artale and Dobos 2015). In addition to this unease,

some are resistant to lifestyle changes which may be associated with transitioning to solar energy

and energy conservation methods (Duffey-Armstrong and Duffey 1979). While the ECS partially

addresses these issues by accepting the risk of failure, it can only overcome negative perceptions

regarding solar technology by demonstrating through success that solar technology is viable.

SUCCESSES OF THE PROJECT:

The ECS project has achieved a number of successes, and contributed to overcoming

many hurdles commonly experienced by those seeking to transition to renewable technologies.

For starters, residents who rent, lease, or otherwise lack the control necessary to install rooftop

15

solar can now participate in solar energy generation. The project has reduced the financial

burden, allowing customers to contribute as much or as little as they want. The city has reduced

stress on consumers by handling all of the paperwork and permitting, significantly increasing the

ease of participation. The land, considered marginal by the city (Energy Services Department

2016) has now found a proactive use producing clean electricity. The community as a whole has

celebrated the project, which has fostered trust and built relationships for future cooperation

(Johnston 2007; Noll, Dawes and Rai 2014). The park has set an example for other communities

and organizations interested in implementing community solar projects (Johnston 2007; Benmar

2010; Farrell 2010; Swearingen 2015). The ECS project has contributed to the local economy by

keeping some of the city’s energy expenditures within the community (Nystedt 2012). Being

independently funded by private investments, the project does not detract from other spheres of

city budgeting (Energy Services Department 2016). The park can be used as a source of

education and tourism for local school groups, technical and academic interests, and so on

(Benmar 2010; Swearingen 2015). By purchasing equipment in bulk, the project helps to

overcome the financial hurdles associated with economies of scale (Naheen, Subail-Bin-Alam

and Debnath 2013). Finally, in terms of environmental success, the park prevented an estimated

304,000 lbs of greenhouse gases from being released into the atmosphere as of 2010 (Benmar

2010).

16

Fig. 4: Graph showing the number of Solar Community Organizations founded in each year

(Noll, Dawes and Rai 2013).

CONCLUSIONS:

Overall, ECS has created waves which have rippled throughout the nation. In terms of

energy sovereignty of the city, energy costs, and energy availability to customers, the project has

had little impact. However, from a social and economic perspective, the project has had many

successes. Most importantly, the park has set an example and provided a model of a community

solar photovoltaic system which both works and is affordable. Articles on the solar park have

circulated all over the internet and a research group based out of Minnesota has examined the

park’s implementation and success (Farrell 2010). In addition to the external examples set by the

park, the ECS project has also achieved a symbolic victory by providing a concrete example of

17

the City Council’s and the people of Ellensburg’s commitment to sustainability and clean,

renewable energy.

Though the park has done much to increase accessibility to residents, there are still

hurdles which face further implementation of solar technology. Many of these obstacles, such as

the financial premiums required for investment in ECS, are unavoidable at present and result

from the status of the solar industry itself. The small size of the park means low significance in

terms of energy generation and impact on offsetting fossil fuel use, however the park is one step

in a long process and has potential for expansion. As a result of these impediments, certain

groups may continue to experience challenges to solar implementation. Low-income groups will

most likely continue to resist a premium in order to support solar technology, and their reasons

for doing so are justified and rational. Little can be done to incorporate these groups aside from

implementing a publicly subsidized investment plan or similar program for low-income residents

(Department of Energy 2009). Students living on-campus are difficult to reach, though the city

may pursue organizing a partnership with CWU University Housing to open up the possibility

for student participation. Aside from these suggestions, it seems the best option is to continue

operations and accrue funding for expansion. Though the ECS project does much to mitigate the

impediments to solar technology, no system is perfect, and as such the City Council and the

people of Ellensburg should continue to pursue a myriad of renewable energy options, including

the expansion and incentivization of roof-top solar installation.

18

APPENDIX:

Map of Solar Contributors: A map of the current contributors to ECS. The initial 73 investors are

in red, the later voluntary block rate contributors are in green. Map provided by Ellensburg

Energy Services Department (2016).

19

REFERENCES:

Artale, Emily and Dobos, Hillary. (2015). Community solar presents rewards and risks. Natural

Gas and Electricity 32(4). 19-24.

Benmar, Claudine. (2010). City brings renewable energy to the little guy. Grist. June 5, 2010.

http://grist.org/article/2010-06-02-city-brings-renewable-energy-to-the-little-guy / , accessed

Feb. 29, 2016.

Boyle, Godfrey (Ed.). (2012). Renewable Energy: Power for a Sustainable Future. 12th Edition.

Oxford University Press. Oxford, U.K.

City of Ellensburg. (2014). Fuel Mix Disclosure. City of Ellensburg.

http :// www.ci.ellensburg.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/4636 , accessed Feb. 25, 2016

City of Ellensburg. (2016a). History. City of Ellensburg.

http://www.ci.ellensburg.wa.us/index.aspx?nid=180, accessed Mar. 3, 2016.

City of Ellensburg. (2016b). Electric (Light) Utility. City of Ellensburg.

http://www.ci.ellensburg.wa.us/index.aspx?NID=195, accessed Feb. 12, 2016.

City of Ellensburg. (2016c). Available Services. City of Ellensburg.

http://www.ci.ellensburg.wa.us/index.aspx?NID=191, accessed Feb. 29, 2016

City of Ellensburg. (2016d). Electric. City of Ellensburg.

http://www.ci.ellensburg.wa.us/index.aspx?NID=119, accessed Feb. 19, 2016.

Department of Energy (2009) Solar Powering Your Community: A Guide for Local

Governments. Washington, D.C., United States Department of Energy.

Duffey-Armstrong, Marilyn and Armstrong, Joe. (1979). Community Impediments to

Implementation of Solar Energy. United States Department of Energy. Washington, D.C.

20

Energy Services Department. (2016). Dunbar, Larry. Director of Energy Services. City of

Ellensburg. Information requested on Feb. 11, 2016

Farrell, John. (2010). Community Solar Power: Obstacles and Opportunities. New Rules Project.

Minneapolis, MN.

Hay, Timothy. (2006). Let the sun shine in: Ellensburg solar electric project would be first of its

kind in the nation. The Daily Record. Mar. 10, 2006.

Himmelman, Jeff. (2012). The secret to solar power. The New York Times. Aug. 9, 2012.

Johnston, Jackie. (2007). Ellensburg’s bright ideas. The Daily News. Mar. 14, 2007.

http:// tdn.com/business/ellensburg-s-bright-ideas/article_a7aae1e2-177f-5c9d-b752

0b435db331d3.html, accessed Feb. 12, 2016.

Matarrese, Andy. (2015). Ellensburg tries new deal for solar park rates, maintenance. The Daily

Record. June 20, 2015. http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/members/ellensburg-tries-new-deal

for-solar-park-rates-maintenance/article_0aa0901e-16d1-11e5-96e2-134464479585.html,

accessed Feb. 14, 2016.

Naheen, Sadia, Aubail-Bin-Alam, Mohammad and Debnath, Kumar Biswajit. (2013).

Cumulative community solar power plant: possibilities and challenges in Bangladesh. Genius

Loci Chapter One 2013. The International Conference on Climate Change and Local

Wisdom. Makassar, Indonesia.

Noll, Daniel, Dawes, Colleen and Rai, Varun. (2014). Solar community organizations and active

peer effects in the adoption of residential PV. Energy Policy 67. 330-343.

Northwest Community Energy. (2009). Ellensburg, Washington’s Community Solar Project.

http ://nwcommunityenergy.org/solar/solar-case-studies/chelan-pud , accessed Jan. 20, 2016.

21

Nystedt, Gary. (2012). Ellensburg Community Renewable Park.

http:// www.slideshare.net/Didgeridiva/ellensburg-community-solar-3-4124 , accessed Feb. 29,

2016.

Rowbotham, Shan. (2015). Annual Report: Energy Services: Energy Efficiency & Conservation.

City of Ellensburg. http://www.ci.ellensburg.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/5405, accessed

Feb. 12, 2016.

Solar Washington. (2016). Ellensburg Community Solar Project. http ://solarwa.org/tour/kittitas

county/ellensburg-community-solar-project, accessed Jan. 25, 2016

Swearingen, Marshall. (2015). Community solar comes of age in the west. High Country News.

Mar. 2, 2015. https:// www.hcn.org/issues/47.4/community-solar-comes-of-age-in-the-west ,

accessed Feb. 19, 2016.

Talbot, David and Morgan, Richard E. (1981). Power and Light: Political Strategies for the Solar

Transition. The Pilgrim Press. New York, NY.

United States Census Bureau. (2014). QuickFacts: Ellensburg, Washington.

http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/5321240,53, accessed Feb. 11, 2016.

Williams, Neville. (2014). Sun Power: How Energy from the Sun is Changing Lives Around the

World, Empowering America, and Saving the Planet. Tom Doherty Associates, LLC. New

York, NY.

22