Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14. Bomber Heights-Glint Glare Analysis-9.3Prepared For: Nexamp Inc. 101 Summer St. 2nd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Submitted by: LaBella Associates 300 State Street, Rochester, NY 14614 Nexamp: Bomber Heights Glint-Glare Analysis Report March 2026 Project No. 2243110 Glint-Glare Analysis Report March 2026 Nexamp Page 2 of 7 Project No. 2243110 Technically, glare is the reflection of diffuse light sources like the sky, while glint is the reflection of directed light sources like the sun. Glint is far more intense that glare, and often what is referred to in the context of solar PV assessments. Despite these formal definitions, we will refer to the reflection of sunlight from the surface of solar panels as glare given its common usage. When light reflects from the surface of an object, the angle of incidence is always equal to the angle of reflection, as shown in the image to the right. In addition, as the angle of incidence increases so does the amount of light reflected. For solar panels, less than 5% of light from the sun reflects at angles common throughout the heart of the day, while between 15 and 40% of sun light reflects during the early morning and late afternoon hours due to the steeper sun angles. Figure 1 – Reflection Path The tilt of the solar panels above the horizontal, their elevation above the ground, and the higher reflectivity of the panels at steeper solar angles mean that the only times glare from these facilities could potentially impact observers close to the ground, like those in cars or in homes, would be when the sun is quite low in the eastern or western sky during dawn or dusk. Additionally, since the panels are oriented to the south, no locations to the north of the array could ever receive glare from the panels, regardless of the time of year. While solar panels will reflect some light as described above, solar glass is designed to capture as much sunlight as possible and thus will generally have similar or less reflectivity than other materials. For example, the smooth surface of a pond will reflect roughly the same amount of sunlight as a solar panel at the angles of interest here, while a freshly covered field of snow will reflect more than twice as much light on average and a steel surface would reflect more than four times as much light over these same angles. Thus, glare from solar facilities is not generally found to be a concern when compared to other materials common in the natural and built environments. This can be seen, for example, in the fact that several solar facilities have been built near airports with findings from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that glare from them poses no hazard to air navigation. Glint-Glare Analysis Report March 2026 Nexamp Page 3 of 7 Project No. 2243110 To ensure there is no glare set by the solar array the FAA developed Technical Guidance for Evaluating Selected Solar Technologies on Airports in 2010 (FAA Guidance). The FAA Guidance recommends use of the Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Tool (SGHAT) by Sandia National Laboratory to determine any potential glare impacts a result of the construction of a solar array. Given this, LaBella assessed the site based on the topography of the area and the natural and proposed vegetative screening around the Project site using the tool outlined above. The solar panel surfaces are modeled to an average of 17 feet above the natural ground on the project site. The project site generally slopes from the North to the South, with a max elevation of 1157.55 feet MSL to the elevation of 1016.31 feet MSL, with a total elevation change of roughly 141 feet. The SGHAT that was used in this assessment was adopted by the FAA in October 2013 for use in assessing solar systems located on or near airports and can predict both the size and intensity of glare for every minute of every day of the year. Of particular importance when using these projections is to note that the Sandia tool is designed to be conservative with two assumptions acting to substantively overestimate the potential for near surface glare. First, the tool models the solar facility as large unbroken sheets of glass despite the fact that roughly 40 to 50% of the facility’s area is undisturbed ground between the rows of panels.. And second, it makes no detailed accounting of cloud cover which could hide the sun and prevent direct solar reflections entirely on some days. The details of this analysis for the present system are included below. Glint-Glare Analysis Report March 2026 Nexamp Page 4 of 7 Project No. 2243110 Figure 2 – Site Configuration with Receptor Locations The SGHAT analysis was performed for the observation points at some of the residences adjacent to the site and included a route analysis for the roads on the north, west, south, and east sides of the site. The following table summarizes the potential annual minutes of glare at each of the observation points shown on the map above. For the purposes of this report Green Glare is defined as glare with a low potential to cause flash blindness. Yellow Glare is defined as glare with the potential to cause temporary flash blindness. Red Glare is defined as glare with potential to cause permanent retinal damage. Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min. hr. min. hr. Route 1 0 0 0 0 Route 2 0 0 0 0 Route 3 0 0 0 0 Route 4 160 2.7 0 0 OP1 0 0 0 0 OP2 0 0 0 0 OP3 0 0 0 0 OP4 0 0 0 0 OP5 0 0 0 0 OP6 0 0 0 0 OP7 0 0 0 0 OP8 0 0 0 0 OP9 0 0 0 0 OP10 0 0 0 0 OP11 0 0 0 0 OP12 0 0 0 0 OP13 0 0 0 0 OP14 0 0 0 0 OP15 0 0 0 0 OP16 0 0 0 0 OP17 0 0 0 0 OP18 0 0 0 0 OP19 0 0 0 0 OP20 0 0 0 0 OP21 0 0 0 0 Glint-Glare Analysis Report March 2026 Nexamp Page 5 of 7 Project No. 2243110 OP22 0 0 0 0 OP23 21 .03 0 0 OP24 0 0 0 0 OP25 71 1.2 0 0 OP26 20 .3 0 0 OP27 0 0 0 0 OP28 0 0 0 0 OP29 0 0 0 0 OP30 0 0 0 0 OP31 0 0 0 0 OP32 0 0 0 0 OP33 0 0 0 0 OP34 0 0 0 0 OP35 0 0 0 0 OP36 0 0 0 0 OP37 0 0 0 0 OP38 19 .3 0 0 OP39 0 0 0 0 OP40 0 0 0 0 OP41 0 0 0 0 OP42 0 0 0 0 Figure 3 – Proposed Glare Summary Table Forty-two (42) observation points were reviewed during the analysis, occasionally resulting in a pair of observation points per location, one at seven (7) feet (simulating a first story window or person on the ground) above ground height and one at 15 feet above ground height (simulating a second story window). Four (4) observation points, as well as one (1) travel routes have the potential for green glare based on SGHAT analysis. No areas analyzed have the potential for yellow or red glare. As noted above, the SGHAT does not fully consider vegetation between the observation points and the array. The SGHAT model does not fully account for existing vegetation between the project site and the observation points. Field conditions indicate that vegetation is present in several areas and may partially or fully screen views of the array, thereby reducing potential glare at these locations. As a review of the minimally impacted areas, portions of Bomber Heights have the potential for green glare at a limited number of locations. The greatest modeled exposure occurs along Route 4, with a potential for 2.7 hours of green glare annually. Among the observation points, OP25 has the highest modeled exposure, with a potential for 1.2 hours of green glare per year. OP26 and OP38 each have the potential for 0.3 hours of green glare annually, and OP23 has the potential for 0.03 hours of green glare annually. For reference, one (1) full year contains 8,760 hours. Glint-Glare Analysis Report March 2026 Nexamp Page 6 of 7 Project No. 2243110 Overall, the SGHAT analysis indicates that potential glare impacts are limited in duration and extent, and no yellow or red glare is predicted at any observation point or travel route analyzed. The full SGHAT Glare Analysis Report can be found in Appendix A. Given the conservative nature of the above analysis, there are several features that will act to further minimize any potential impacts from glare at this site. First, the panels proposed for use at this facility are manufactured with specialized glass and include anti-reflective coatings that substantially reduce their potential to generate glare. Second, the panels will be mounted on single-axis tracking systems designed to optimize solar exposure throughout the day. These tracking systems continuously adjust the orientation of the panels to follow the sun’s position. As a result, the panels are less likely to remain in a fixed position that would direct reflected sunlight toward a receptor for extended periods, thereby reducing both the likelihood and duration of potential glare. Third, several of the identified receptors, including portions of Bomber Heights, are partially or fully screened from the project site by existing forested vegetation located along multiple sides of the facility. This vegetation was not fully incorporated into the SGHAT model and may serve to further reduce or eliminate actual glare visibility in field conditions. Finally, areas of the project site that are not currently vegetated are proposed to include additional vegetative screening as part of the project design. This supplemental planting is anticipated to provide additional visual buffering over time. While the exact height and density of existing and proposed vegetation are not fully quantified in the analysis, these features are expected to provide additional screening and may further reduce potential glare exposure at nearby receptors. Given the above analysis, a limited number of selected observation points and travel routes may experience some green glare from the proposed solar facility at certain times of the year. Specifically, four (4) observation points and one (1) travel routes have the potential for green glare. Total potential annual glare at the noted observation points accumulated to 291 minutes or 4.8 hours per year. However, there is no potential impact for yellow or red glare at any evaluated location. Green glare is considered to pose little to no risk to human health or safety, particularly when compared to red glare, which has the potential to cause temporary after-image effects. The absence of predicted yellow and red glare indicates that no significant glare-related safety concerns are anticipated as a result of the proposed facility. When considering the anti-reflective properties of the solar panels proposed for use at this facility, along with existing site characteristics, including intervening vegetation, potential glare impacts are expected to be minimized or eliminated at certain locations. It should be noted that vegetation was not fully modeled in the SGHAT analysis, and existing or future vegetative conditions may further reduce visibility of the array. Additional field verification would be Glint-Glare Analysis Report March 2026 Nexamp Page 7 of 7 Project No. 2243110 required to fully quantify the extent of this screening effect. Overall, the results of the analysis indicate that potential glare impacts are limited in duration, infrequent, and will not result in significant adverse impacts. 2018, Technical Guidance for Evaluating Selected Solar Technologies on Airports, www.faa.gov/airports/environmental/policy_guidance/media/FAA-Airport-Solar-Guide- 2018.pdf ForgeSolar, 2016, www.forgesolar.com FORGESOLAR GLARE ANALYSIS Glare Policy Adherence The following table estimates the policy adherence of this glare analysis according to the 2021 U.S. Federal Aviation Administration Policy: Review of Solar Energy System Projects on Federally-Obligated Airports This policy may require the following criteria be met for solar energy systems on airport property: No glare of any kind for Air Traffic Control Tower(s) ("ATCT") at cab height. Default analysis and observer characteristics, including 1-minute time step. ForgeSolar is not affiliated with the U.S. FAA and does not represent or speak officially for the U.S. FAA. ForgeSolar cannot approve or deny projects - results are informational only. Contact the relevant airport and FAA district office for information on policy and requirements. COMPONENT STATUS DESCRIPTION Analysis parameters PASS Analysis time interval and eye characteristics used are acceptable ATCT(s)N/A No ATCT receptors assessed The referenced policy can be read at https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-09862 Project: Bomber Heights Nexamp ("Client") is developing on 5.0 MWac Solar array with a 5.0 MW/20 Mwh battery energy storage system (BESS) at 141 Troy Road in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York. Site configuration: Bomber Heights-expanded Calculated via ForgeSolar Radiometric Physics Engine v3.1.1 Client: Nexamp Created 23 Mar, 2026 Updated 26 Mar, 2026 Time-step 1 minute Timezone offset UTC-5 Minimum sun altitude 0.0 deg DNI peaks at 1,000.0 W/m Site ID 173838.28792 Ocular transmission coefficient 0.5 Pupil diameter 0.002 m Eye focal length 0.017 m Sun subtended angle 9.3 mrad 2 • • Page 1 of 11 Component Data This report includes results for PV arrays and Observation Point ("OP") receptors marked as ATCTs. Components that are not pertinent to the policy, such as routes, flight paths, and vertical surfaces, are excluded. PV Arrays Observation Point ATCT Receptors No ATCT receptors were included in the analysis. Name: PV array 1 Axis tracking: Single-axis rotation Backtracking: Shade Tracking axis orientation: 180.0° Max tracking angle: 60.0° Resting angle: 0.0° Ground Coverage Ratio: 0.25 Rated power: - Panel material: Smooth glass with AR coating Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft)Height above ground (ft)Total elevation (ft) 1 42.404947 -76.475714 1157.55 17.00 1174.55 2 42.404891 -76.469802 1060.89 17.00 1077.89 3 42.408313 -76.473364 1016.31 17.00 1033.31 4 42.408757 -76.472806 1038.28 17.00 1055.28 5 42.409898 -76.474695 1052.06 17.00 1069.06 6 42.409874 -76.476089 1012.05 17.00 1029.05 7 42.407632 -76.475955 1041.61 17.00 1058.61 Page 2 of 11 Obstruction Components Name: Obstruction 1 Top height: 32.0 ft Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) 1 42.404777 -76.473850 1112.13 2 42.404761 -76.477605 1166.04 3 42.403303 -76.477498 1199.86 4 42.403367 -76.473979 1117.43 5 42.404777 -76.473850 1112.13 Name: Obstruction 11 Top height: 32.8 ft Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) 1 42.413754 -76.449684 841.98 2 42.411837 -76.445682 858.11 3 42.411259 -76.446229 843.53 4 42.413318 -76.450778 800.44 5 42.413754 -76.449684 841.98 Page 3 of 11 Name: Obstruction 12 Top height: 32.8 ft Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) 1 42.409040 -76.482201 1166.56 2 42.408708 -76.482566 1188.31 3 42.405998 -76.478634 1152.91 4 42.407274 -76.478612 1112.54 5 42.408185 -76.480286 1143.76 6 42.409040 -76.482201 1166.56 Name: Obstruction 12 Top height: 32.8 ft Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) 1 42.409589 -76.441552 840.92 2 42.408951 -76.442394 874.92 3 42.407386 -76.439207 886.57 4 42.407972 -76.438091 866.72 5 42.409589 -76.441552 840.92 Page 4 of 11 Name: Obstruction 13 Top height: 32.8 ft Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) 1 42.421102 -76.448682 1167.09 2 42.420769 -76.448468 1166.23 3 42.420816 -76.448049 1165.90 4 42.420943 -76.447642 1177.12 5 42.420246 -76.447599 1178.95 6 42.420222 -76.449036 1159.64 7 42.420706 -76.449047 1165.31 8 42.421102 -76.448682 1167.09 Name: Obstruction 13 Top height: 20.0 ft Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) 1 42.424183 -76.458450 1005.07 2 42.422468 -76.457533 1032.88 3 42.422358 -76.458461 999.14 4 42.423811 -76.459368 996.51 5 42.424183 -76.458450 1005.07 Page 5 of 11 Name: Obstruction 14 Top height: 20.0 ft Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) 1 42.420708 -76.456956 970.42 2 42.418268 -76.453705 912.99 3 42.417999 -76.453984 897.55 4 42.420439 -76.457310 918.76 5 42.420708 -76.456956 970.42 Name: Obstruction 2 Top height: 20.0 ft Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) 1 42.409188 -76.477146 1027.74 2 42.407730 -76.476116 1043.13 Page 6 of 11 Name: Obstruction 3 Top height: 20.0 ft Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) 1 42.409845 -76.476267 1011.40 2 42.408871 -76.476203 1031.53 Name: Obstruction 4 Top height: 20.0 ft Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) 1 42.409901 -76.476832 1017.39 2 42.409916 -76.475920 1017.76 Page 7 of 11 Name: Obstruction 5 Top height: 32.8 ft Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) 1 42.408002 -76.477765 1065.79 2 42.404818 -76.477594 1163.75 3 42.404849 -76.475813 1165.36 4 42.407543 -76.476135 1056.82 5 42.408002 -76.477765 1065.79 Name: Obstruction 6 Top height: 32.8 ft Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) 1 42.409096 -76.472036 992.36 2 42.408287 -76.473088 1066.90 3 42.404247 -76.468839 1067.61 4 42.404580 -76.467702 1000.67 5 42.409096 -76.472036 992.36 Page 8 of 11 Name: Obstruction 7 Top height: 40.0 ft Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) 1 42.410885 -76.476368 1022.98 2 42.410109 -76.476261 1011.35 3 42.410085 -76.474651 1044.33 4 42.408817 -76.472548 1056.80 5 42.409190 -76.472087 986.49 6 42.410132 -76.473943 1057.21 7 42.410885 -76.476368 1022.98 Page 9 of 11 Glare Analysis Results Summary of Results No glare predicted PV Array Tilt Orient Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare Energy °°min hr min hr kWh PV array 1 SA tracking SA tracking 0 0.0 0 0.0 - No ATCT receptors were included in the analysis. PV: PV array 1 No ATCT receptors assessed. Page 10 of 11 Assumptions Default glare analysis parameters and observer eye characteristics (for reference only): Analysis time interval: 1 minute Ocular transmission coefficient: 0.5 Pupil diameter: 0.002 meters Eye focal length: 0.017 meters Sun subtended angle: 9.3 milliradians © 2026 Sims Industries d/b/a ForgeSolar, All Rights Reserved. This analysis was conducted using the best available radiometric modeling at the time of generation. Future updates to the modeling methodology may yield different results. "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. The algorithm does not rigorously represent the detailed geometry of a system; detailed features such as gaps between modules, variable height of the PV array, and support structures may impact actual glare results. However, we have validated our models against several systems, including a PV array causing glare to the air-traffic control tower at Manchester-Boston Regional Airport and several sites in Albuquerque, and the tool accurately predicted the occurrence and intensity of glare at different times and days of the year. Random number computations are utilized by various steps of the annual hazard analysis algorithm. Predicted minutes of glare can vary between runs as a result. This limitation primarily affects analyses of Observation Point receptors, including ATCTs. Note that the SGHAT/ ForgeSolar methodology has always relied on an analytical, qualitative approach to accurately determine the overall hazard (i.e. green vs. yellow) of expected glare on an annual basis. The analysis does not automatically consider obstacles (either man-made or natural) between the observation points and the prescribed solar installation that may obstruct observed glare, such as trees, hills, buildings, etc. 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.) The variable direct normal irradiance (DNI) feature (if selected) scales the user-prescribed peak DNI using a typical clear-day irradiance profile. This profile has a lower DNI in the mornings and evenings and a maximum at solar noon. The scaling uses a clear-day irradiance profile based on a normalized time relative to sunrise, solar noon, and sunset, which are prescribed by a sun-position algorithm and the latitude and longitude obtained from Google maps. The actual DNI on any given day can be affected by cloud cover, atmospheric attenuation, and other environmental factors. The ocular hazard predicted by the tool depends on a number of environmental, optical, and human factors, which can be uncertain. We provide input fields and typical ranges of values for these factors so that the user can vary these parameters to see if they have an impact on the results. The speed of SGHAT allows expedited sensitivity and parametric analyses. The system output calculation is a DNI-based approximation that assumes clear, sunny skies year-round. It should not be used in place of more rigorous modeling methods. 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. Glare locations displayed on receptor plots are approximate. Actual glare-spot locations may differ. Refer to the Help page at www.forgesolar.com/help/ for assumptions and limitations not listed here. • • • • • Page 11 of 11 FORGESOLAR GLARE ANALYSIS Summary of Results Glare with low potential for temporary after-image predicted PV Array Tilt Orient Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare Energy °°min hr min hr kWh PV array 1 SA tracking SA tracking 291 4.8 0 0.0 - Total glare received by each receptor; may include duplicate times of glare from multiple reflective surfaces. Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr Route 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 Route 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 Route 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 Route 4 160 2.7 0 0.0 OP 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 5 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 6 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 7 0 0.0 0 0.0 Project: Bomber Heights Nexamp ("Client") is developing on 5.0 MWac Solar array with a 5.0 MW/20 Mwh battery energy storage system (BESS) at 141 Troy Road in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York. Site configuration: Bomber Heights-expanded Calculated via ForgeSolar Radiometric Physics Engine v3.1.1 Client: Nexamp Created 23 Mar, 2026 Updated 26 Mar, 2026 Time-step 1 minute Timezone offset UTC-5 Minimum sun altitude 0.0 deg DNI peaks at 1,000.0 W/m Category 1 MW to 5 MW Site ID 173838.28792 Ocular transmission coefficient 0.5 Pupil diameter 0.002 m Eye focal length 0.017 m Sun subtended angle 9.3 mrad 2 Page 1 of 26 Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr OP 8 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 9 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 10 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 11 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 12 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 13 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 14 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 15 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 16 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 17 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 18 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 19 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 20 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 21 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 22 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 23 21 0.3 0 0.0 OP 24 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 25 71 1.2 0 0.0 OP 26 20 0.3 0 0.0 OP 27 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 28 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 29 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 30 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 31 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 32 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 33 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 34 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 35 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 36 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 37 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 38 19 0.3 0 0.0 OP 39 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 40 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 41 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 42 0 0.0 0 0.0 Page 2 of 26 Component Data PV Arrays Route Receptors Name: PV array 1 Axis tracking: Single-axis rotation Backtracking: Shade Tracking axis orientation: 180.0° Max tracking angle: 60.0° Resting angle: 0.0° Ground Coverage Ratio: 0.25 Rated power: - Panel material: Smooth glass with AR coating Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft)Height above ground (ft)Total elevation (ft) 1 42.404947 -76.475714 1157.55 17.00 1174.55 2 42.404891 -76.469802 1060.89 17.00 1077.89 3 42.408313 -76.473364 1016.31 17.00 1033.31 4 42.408757 -76.472806 1038.28 17.00 1055.28 5 42.409898 -76.474695 1052.06 17.00 1069.06 6 42.409874 -76.476089 1012.05 17.00 1029.05 7 42.407632 -76.475955 1041.61 17.00 1058.61 Name: Route 2 Path type: Two-way Azimuthal view angle: 50.0° Downward view angle: 90.0° Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft)Height above ground (ft)Total elevation (ft) 1 42.415796 -76.478256 927.28 4.50 931.78 2 42.407812 -76.469158 946.01 4.50 950.51 3 42.403375 -76.463579 967.95 4.50 972.45 4 42.401062 -76.458815 972.35 4.50 976.85 Page 3 of 26 Name: Route 2 Path type: Two-way Azimuthal view angle: 50.0° Downward view angle: 90.0° Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft)Height above ground (ft)Total elevation (ft) 1 42.415786 -76.478353 928.04 4.50 932.54 2 42.410400 -76.478096 1018.84 4.50 1023.34 3 42.404221 -76.477709 1177.66 4.50 1182.16 4 42.402161 -76.477666 1234.81 4.50 1239.31 5 42.400133 -76.476508 1309.77 4.50 1314.27 6 42.390699 -76.471861 1456.91 4.50 1461.41 Name: Route 3 Path type: Two-way Azimuthal view angle: 50.0° Downward view angle: 90.0° Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft)Height above ground (ft)Total elevation (ft) 1 42.423369 -76.462935 850.52 4.50 855.02 2 42.420359 -76.458772 863.71 4.50 868.21 3 42.417159 -76.453193 888.21 4.50 892.71 4 42.414498 -76.448558 882.90 4.50 887.40 5 42.411900 -76.443537 895.07 4.50 899.57 6 42.407875 -76.434482 888.57 4.50 893.07 7 42.405245 -76.429332 883.68 4.50 888.18 8 42.402520 -76.423796 903.17 4.50 907.67 Page 4 of 26 Name: Route 4 Path type: Two-way Azimuthal view angle: 50.0° Downward view angle: 90.0° Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft)Height above ground (ft)Total elevation (ft) 1 42.408054 -76.503115 1064.87 4.50 1069.37 2 42.407167 -76.499424 1120.53 4.50 1125.03 3 42.406343 -76.493587 1237.15 4.50 1241.65 4 42.406090 -76.490583 1273.23 4.50 1277.73 5 42.404347 -76.485991 1290.54 4.50 1295.04 6 42.403206 -76.482859 1299.36 4.50 1303.86 7 42.399783 -76.481442 1347.56 4.50 1352.06 8 42.395632 -76.480670 1411.91 4.50 1416.41 9 42.394491 -76.481185 1428.03 4.50 1432.53 Page 5 of 26 Discrete Observation Point Receptors Name ID Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Elevation (ft)Height (ft) OP 1 1 42.403838 -76.472166 1069.87 7.00 OP 2 2 42.403675 -76.475785 1151.96 7.00 OP 3 3 42.409617 -76.478405 1034.57 7.00 OP 4 4 42.409063 -76.478448 1051.98 7.00 OP 5 5 42.408368 -76.478416 1067.14 7.00 OP 6 6 42.407687 -76.478340 1093.05 7.00 OP 7 7 42.406699 -76.478387 1124.15 7.00 OP 8 8 42.406157 -76.478231 1138.02 7.00 OP 9 9 42.405630 -76.478306 1152.38 7.00 OP 10 10 42.404472 -76.478322 1184.02 7.00 OP 11 11 42.404097 -76.478270 1193.47 7.00 OP 12 12 42.410365 -76.478544 1022.37 7.00 OP 13 13 42.410813 -76.476977 1010.91 7.00 OP 14 14 42.410097 -76.471064 924.98 7.00 OP 15 15 42.409229 -76.471375 946.11 7.00 OP 16 16 42.406465 -76.468254 960.82 7.00 OP 17 17 42.407582 -76.468211 937.53 7.00 OP 18 18 42.412884 -76.475586 942.36 7.00 OP 19 19 42.411577 -76.474089 955.61 7.00 OP 20 20 42.412179 -76.474867 950.28 7.00 OP 21 21 42.409944 -76.439416 880.40 7.00 OP 22 22 42.412777 -76.444670 900.40 7.00 OP 23 23 42.404508 -76.481244 1237.91 7.00 OP 24 24 42.404223 -76.480751 1237.84 7.00 OP 25 25 42.404877 -76.480885 1227.16 7.00 OP 26 26 42.404631 -76.480413 1222.51 7.00 OP 27 27 42.404445 -76.480236 1226.07 7.00 OP 28 28 42.408047 -76.482364 1192.36 7.00 OP 29 29 42.408099 -76.482981 1199.24 7.00 OP 30 30 42.407513 -76.483077 1203.44 7.00 OP 31 31 42.412314 -76.478626 1007.99 7.00 OP 32 32 42.412837 -76.478712 985.96 7.00 OP 33 33 42.413154 -76.477650 969.53 7.00 OP 34 34 42.424024 -76.457452 1022.86 5.00 OP 35 35 42.419224 -76.453628 980.97 6.00 OP 36 36 42.418923 -76.454240 939.34 7.00 OP 37 37 42.418606 -76.454047 930.08 7.00 OP 38 38 42.419916 -76.454284 978.30 12.00 OP 39 39 42.419784 -76.455019 962.70 12.00 OP 40 40 42.414661 -76.447634 914.25 7.00 OP 41 41 42.413834 -76.448213 862.94 7.00 OP 42 42 42.421020 -76.448326 1170.73 5.00 Page 6 of 26 Obstruction Components Name: Obstruction 1 Top height: 32.0 ft Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) 1 42.404777 -76.473850 1112.13 2 42.404761 -76.477605 1166.04 3 42.403303 -76.477498 1199.86 4 42.403367 -76.473979 1117.43 5 42.404777 -76.473850 1112.13 Name: Obstruction 11 Top height: 32.8 ft Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) 1 42.413754 -76.449684 841.98 2 42.411837 -76.445682 858.11 3 42.411259 -76.446229 843.53 4 42.413318 -76.450778 800.44 5 42.413754 -76.449684 841.98 Page 7 of 26 Name: Obstruction 12 Top height: 32.8 ft Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) 1 42.409040 -76.482201 1166.56 2 42.408708 -76.482566 1188.31 3 42.405998 -76.478634 1152.91 4 42.407274 -76.478612 1112.54 5 42.408185 -76.480286 1143.76 6 42.409040 -76.482201 1166.56 Name: Obstruction 12 Top height: 32.8 ft Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) 1 42.409589 -76.441552 840.92 2 42.408951 -76.442394 874.92 3 42.407386 -76.439207 886.57 4 42.407972 -76.438091 866.72 5 42.409589 -76.441552 840.92 Page 8 of 26 Name: Obstruction 13 Top height: 32.8 ft Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) 1 42.421102 -76.448682 1167.09 2 42.420769 -76.448468 1166.23 3 42.420816 -76.448049 1165.90 4 42.420943 -76.447642 1177.12 5 42.420246 -76.447599 1178.95 6 42.420222 -76.449036 1159.64 7 42.420706 -76.449047 1165.31 8 42.421102 -76.448682 1167.09 Name: Obstruction 13 Top height: 20.0 ft Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) 1 42.424183 -76.458450 1005.07 2 42.422468 -76.457533 1032.88 3 42.422358 -76.458461 999.14 4 42.423811 -76.459368 996.51 5 42.424183 -76.458450 1005.07 Page 9 of 26 Name: Obstruction 14 Top height: 20.0 ft Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) 1 42.420708 -76.456956 970.42 2 42.418268 -76.453705 912.99 3 42.417999 -76.453984 897.55 4 42.420439 -76.457310 918.76 5 42.420708 -76.456956 970.42 Name: Obstruction 2 Top height: 20.0 ft Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) 1 42.409188 -76.477146 1027.74 2 42.407730 -76.476116 1043.13 Page 10 of 26 Name: Obstruction 3 Top height: 20.0 ft Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) 1 42.409845 -76.476267 1011.40 2 42.408871 -76.476203 1031.53 Name: Obstruction 4 Top height: 20.0 ft Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) 1 42.409901 -76.476832 1017.39 2 42.409916 -76.475920 1017.76 Page 11 of 26 Name: Obstruction 5 Top height: 32.8 ft Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) 1 42.408002 -76.477765 1065.79 2 42.404818 -76.477594 1163.75 3 42.404849 -76.475813 1165.36 4 42.407543 -76.476135 1056.82 5 42.408002 -76.477765 1065.79 Name: Obstruction 6 Top height: 32.8 ft Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) 1 42.409096 -76.472036 992.36 2 42.408287 -76.473088 1066.90 3 42.404247 -76.468839 1067.61 4 42.404580 -76.467702 1000.67 5 42.409096 -76.472036 992.36 Page 12 of 26 Name: Obstruction 7 Top height: 40.0 ft Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) 1 42.410885 -76.476368 1022.98 2 42.410109 -76.476261 1011.35 3 42.410085 -76.474651 1044.33 4 42.408817 -76.472548 1056.80 5 42.409190 -76.472087 986.49 6 42.410132 -76.473943 1057.21 7 42.410885 -76.476368 1022.98 Page 13 of 26 Glare Analysis Results Summary of Results Glare with low potential for temporary after-image predicted PV Array Tilt Orient Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare Energy °°min hr min hr kWh PV array 1 SA tracking SA tracking 291 4.8 0 0.0 - Total glare received by each receptor; may include duplicate times of glare from multiple reflective surfaces. Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr Route 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 Route 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 Route 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 Route 4 160 2.7 0 0.0 OP 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 5 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 6 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 7 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 8 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 9 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 10 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 11 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 12 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 13 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 14 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 15 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 16 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 17 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 18 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 19 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 20 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 21 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 22 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 23 21 0.3 0 0.0 OP 24 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 25 71 1.2 0 0.0 OP 26 20 0.3 0 0.0 OP 27 0 0.0 0 0.0 Page 14 of 26 Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr OP 28 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 29 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 30 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 31 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 32 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 33 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 34 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 35 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 36 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 37 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 38 19 0.3 0 0.0 OP 39 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 40 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 41 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 42 0 0.0 0 0.0 Page 15 of 26 PV: PV array 1 low potential for temporary after-image Receptor results ordered by category of glare Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr Route 4 160 2.7 0 0.0 Route 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 Route 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 Route 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 23 21 0.3 0 0.0 OP 25 71 1.2 0 0.0 OP 26 20 0.3 0 0.0 OP 38 19 0.3 0 0.0 OP 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 5 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 6 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 7 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 8 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 9 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 10 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 11 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 12 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 13 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 14 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 15 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 16 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 17 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 18 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 19 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 20 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 21 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 22 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 24 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 27 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 28 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 29 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 30 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 31 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 32 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 33 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 34 0 0.0 0 0.0 Page 16 of 26 Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr OP 35 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 36 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 37 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 39 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 40 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 41 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 42 0 0.0 0 0.0 Page 17 of 26 PV array 1 and Route: Route 4 Yellow glare: none Green glare: 160 min. PV array 1 and Route: Route 2 No glare found Page 18 of 26 PV array 1 and Route: Route 2 No glare found PV array 1 and Route: Route 3 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 23 Yellow glare: none Green glare: 21 min. Page 19 of 26 PV array 1 and OP 25 Yellow glare: none Green glare: 71 min. Page 20 of 26 PV array 1 and OP 26 Yellow glare: none Green glare: 20 min. Page 21 of 26 PV array 1 and OP 38 Yellow glare: none Green glare: 19 min. PV array 1 and OP 1 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 2 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 3 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 4 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 5 No glare found Page 22 of 26 PV array 1 and OP 6 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 7 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 8 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 9 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 10 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 11 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 12 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 13 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 14 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 15 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 16 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 17 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 18 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 19 No glare found Page 23 of 26 PV array 1 and OP 20 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 21 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 22 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 24 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 27 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 28 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 29 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 30 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 31 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 32 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 33 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 34 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 35 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 36 No glare found Page 24 of 26 PV array 1 and OP 37 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 39 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 40 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 41 No glare found PV array 1 and OP 42 No glare found Page 25 of 26 Assumptions Default glare analysis parameters and observer eye characteristics (for reference only): Analysis time interval: 1 minute Ocular transmission coefficient: 0.5 Pupil diameter: 0.002 meters Eye focal length: 0.017 meters Sun subtended angle: 9.3 milliradians © 2026 Sims Industries d/b/a ForgeSolar, All Rights Reserved. This analysis was conducted using the best available radiometric modeling at the time of generation. Future updates to the modeling methodology may yield different results. "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. The algorithm does not rigorously represent the detailed geometry of a system; detailed features such as gaps between modules, variable height of the PV array, and support structures may impact actual glare results. However, we have validated our models against several systems, including a PV array causing glare to the air-traffic control tower at Manchester-Boston Regional Airport and several sites in Albuquerque, and the tool accurately predicted the occurrence and intensity of glare at different times and days of the year. Random number computations are utilized by various steps of the annual hazard analysis algorithm. Predicted minutes of glare can vary between runs as a result. This limitation primarily affects analyses of Observation Point receptors, including ATCTs. Note that the SGHAT/ ForgeSolar methodology has always relied on an analytical, qualitative approach to accurately determine the overall hazard (i.e. green vs. yellow) of expected glare on an annual basis. The analysis does not automatically consider obstacles (either man-made or natural) between the observation points and the prescribed solar installation that may obstruct observed glare, such as trees, hills, buildings, etc. 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.) The variable direct normal irradiance (DNI) feature (if selected) scales the user-prescribed peak DNI using a typical clear-day irradiance profile. This profile has a lower DNI in the mornings and evenings and a maximum at solar noon. The scaling uses a clear-day irradiance profile based on a normalized time relative to sunrise, solar noon, and sunset, which are prescribed by a sun-position algorithm and the latitude and longitude obtained from Google maps. The actual DNI on any given day can be affected by cloud cover, atmospheric attenuation, and other environmental factors. The ocular hazard predicted by the tool depends on a number of environmental, optical, and human factors, which can be uncertain. We provide input fields and typical ranges of values for these factors so that the user can vary these parameters to see if they have an impact on the results. The speed of SGHAT allows expedited sensitivity and parametric analyses. The system output calculation is a DNI-based approximation that assumes clear, sunny skies year-round. It should not be used in place of more rigorous modeling methods. 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. Glare locations displayed on receptor plots are approximate. Actual glare-spot locations may differ. Refer to the Help page at www.forgesolar.com/help/ for assumptions and limitations not listed here. • • • • • Page 26 of 26