Microgrid
ProjectsSubmit a project

Home / Directory / Greenport Microgrid Feasibility Study

North America / Commercial & demonstration

Greenport Microgrid Feasibility Study

Current status, energy mix, organizations, suppliers, equipment, controls, reported specifications, and project updates—with source-level citations.

CoverageDetailed public record
Named organizations10
System facts21
Sources reviewed5
Evidence reviewed2026-07-20

This record is the 2016 NY Prize Stage 1 feasibility concept for the Village of Greenport municipal utility on Long Island, not an operating 8.4 MW microgrid. The concept combined a proposed 7.4 MW Wärtsilä dual-fuel reciprocating generator, 375 kW hospital CCHP, 500 kW total PV, a 125 kW/500 kWh battery, demand response, existing backup generation, and distribution controls. Its $14.54 million financial case depended heavily on NY Prize grant support and unresolved fuel/offtake arrangements.

Research status
Feasibility/design concept, not verified as built. Greenport appeared among GE's Stage 1 studies but not among the four projects GE supported in Stage 2, and the statewide Stage 2 winner list also omitted Greenport. A separate 2018 Village RFP sought design services for distribution hardening plus an as-yet-unselected renewable resource and storage with anticipated construction funding of $1-5 million; no reviewed public source confirms that the 2016 7.4 MW/CCHP/BESS design or the later RFP concept reached construction or operation.
Historical classification
Community
Reported capacity
See component specifications
Coordinates
41.10343, -72.35925
Evidence note: “Every company” cannot be proven from public material alone. This page lists every organization found in the recovered record and reviewed sources, preserves unknown roles, and explicitly marks undisclosed controller or equipment details.
Report missing evidenceResearch methodology

Project delivery

Who was involved in Greenport Microgrid Feasibility Study?

10 publicly identified organizations. Where a recovered source named a participant without explaining its work, the role remains explicitly unspecified.

Organization

Burns Group

Publicly named participant; role not specified in the recovered record [1]

Organization

D&B

Publicly named participant; role not specified in the recovered record [1]

Organization

Eastern Long Island Hospital

Proposed host and electric/thermal customer for the 375 kW CCHP system; now known as Stony Brook Eastern Long Island Hospital, but the historic study uses ELIH. [2]

Organization

GE Energy Consulting

Publicly named participant; role not specified in the recovered record [1]

Organization

GE Energy Consulting, D&B Engineers, and Burns Engineering

Engineering, conceptual design, dispatch/economic analysis, and feasibility-study team. [2][3]

Organization

Global Common

Publicly named participant; role not specified in the recovered record [1]

Organization

Global Common, LLC

Stage 1 project developer and proposed principal of a Microgrid Energy Services Company (MESCO). [2]

Organization

NYSERDA

Administrator of the NY Prize program and publisher/funder of the Stage 1 feasibility work. [2][3]

Organization

PSEG Long Island and National Grid

Proposed grid/market interface and gas supplier respectively; both roles required further agreements and engineering studies. [2]

Organization

Village of Greenport / Greenport Municipal Utilities (GMU)

Municipal distribution-utility owner and applicant; proposed owner/operator of the CCHP, battery, and electric distribution system. [2][4]

System evidence

Energy mix, capacity, and specifications

Values can describe different project phases, generation sources, storage systems, or other components. Source citations are attached to each figure so discrepancies remain visible.

Storage
NA [1]
Proposed main generator
7.4 MW prepackaged Wärtsilä dual-fuel reciprocating generator, modeled on LNG with possible interruptible pipeline gas; 8,400 Btu/kWh heat rate and greater than 40% efficiency quoted in the study [2]
Proposed hospital CCHP
375 kW natural-gas unit plus a 100 kW-equivalent absorption chiller; modeled at about 3.1 million kWh/year and 95% capacity factor [2]
Proposed and existing solar PV
500 kW total: existing 250 kW at the high school plus 250 kW proposed at the hospital and/or Moore's Lane park area [2]
Proposed battery storage
125 kW/500 kWh, four-hour duration, proposed beside the wastewater treatment plant for peak shaving and island stability [2]
Proposed demand response
90 kW: 65 kW at ELIH, 10 kW at the wastewater treatment plant, and 15 kW at IGA Grocery [2]
Existing Village plant at study date
6.8 MW Number 2 fuel-oil plant with three diesel units installed in 1957, 1965, and 1971; the study characterized long-term reliability as questionable and used it as background/backup rather than the new firm resource [2]
Proposed LNG reserve
70,000 gallons, modeled as seven days of fuel at average GMU load if pipeline gas was unavailable [2]
Conceptual project cost
$14,535,810, including $11.36 million generation, $1.5 million CCHP, $666,750 solar, $300,000 battery, and $709,060 distribution/controls; excluded some design, financing, legal, and development costs [2]

Controls and hardware

Equipment and controller details

Manufacturer and model are shown only when a source names them. Generic descriptions are not converted into guessed product assignments.

01

Proposed reciprocating generator

Wärtsilä

A prepackaged 7.4 MW dual-fuel unit selected conceptually for output, heat rate, installed-cost, and limited peaking dispatch. The study does not give a model, purchase order, or as-built serial equipment. [2]

02

Proposed battery energy storage

Model not publicly disclosed

125 kW/500 kWh system; chemistry, manufacturer, inverter, and model were to be selected later and are not disclosed. [2]

03

Proposed microgrid controller

Model not publicly disclosed

The conceptual controller would monitor multiple points of interconnection, dispatch resources, forecast/curtail PV, shed load rapidly, manage voltage/frequency, coordinate protection settings, and present a web interface. Vendor selection was explicitly undetermined. [2]

04

Existing generation

Model not publicly disclosed

The Village's three aging 6.8 MW oil units and the hospital's backup diesel equipment existed before the proposal. They should not be reported as newly built microgrid equipment. [2][4]

Technical record

Architecture, performance, and project updates

Concise technical facts, milestones, operating results, and later developments. Dated notes distinguish historical design claims from current evidence.

  • Generation

    liquefied natural gas-fueled generator and a combination of existing and proposed wind, solar, and energy storage resources [1]

  • Proposed islanding sequence

    Boundary switches would open after loss of grid voltage/frequency; hospital emergency generation would start first, then the CCHP and main gas engine would start/synchronize, feeder ties would close to build the island, loads would be picked up sequentially, and PV would reconnect after stable voltage and frequency were established. [2]

  • Proposed service scope

    The concept targeted the entire GMU service area during outages, including the hospital, wastewater and water facilities, schools, fire services, Village Hall, ferry/downtown businesses, and other loads on the reused feeders. The 7.4 MW unit was sized near GMU's roughly 6.6 MW peak. [2]

  • Normal-mode dispatch

    The CCHP was modeled as hospital baseload, PV and the battery as peak reduction, and the 7.4 MW plant as a market/contract resource serving customers outside GMU when prices justified dispatch. The design was therefore more than an emergency-only backup concept. [2]

  • Financial dependency

    The study found the microgrid technically feasible, but modeled $7 million of NY Prize support. It concluded GMU could not service its modeled share of debt without that support and that MESCO equity would likely be difficult to attract because short-term offtake might not cover plant output. [2]

  • Program outcome

    GE's current program summary places Greenport only in Stage 1 and lists Albany University Heights, Binghamton, Freeport, and Syracuse as its Stage 2 communities. The statewide 11-winner announcement likewise omits Greenport, so the Stage 1 ratings remain proposals rather than an award-backed as-built configuration. [3][5]

  • Separate 2018 follow-on

    The Village later solicited engineering/design services for pole replacement, reconductoring, automated switching, and an unspecified renewable source plus storage under a $1-5 million CDBG-DR construction envelope. Because the RFP asked the engineer to select the renewable resource, it is not evidence that the earlier Wärtsilä/CCHP/BESS design was procured. [4]

  • Evidence boundary

    No construction notice, equipment award, commissioning record, operating data, or current microgrid asset list was located. Every new-generation and storage rating from the Stage 1 report is therefore labeled proposed. [2][3][4]

Provenance

5 sources

Primary owner, government, university, supplier, and engineering sources are preferred. Archived references preserve claims whose original pages moved or disappeared.

  1. [1]
    Recovered Microgrid Projects record

    Internet Archive · Archived source · captured 2021-04-20

  2. [2]
    Greenport Microgrid NY Prize Stage 1 Report

    NYSERDA / Global Common / GE Energy Consulting / D&B / Burns Engineering · Primary source

  3. [3]
  4. [4]
  5. [5]
    NY Prize Announces Stage 2 Microgrid Winners

    Microgrid Knowledge · Secondary research

Continue exploring

Related projects in North America