Microgrid
ProjectsSubmit a project

Home / Directory / Hempstead – Port Washington Microgrid Feasibility Study

North America / Commercial & demonstration

Hempstead – Port Washington Microgrid Feasibility Study

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

CoverageDetailed public record
Named organizations17
System facts32
Sources reviewed6
Evidence reviewed2026-07-20

The Town of North Hempstead's Port Washington project was a NY Prize Stage 1 feasibility study for five coordinated, site-level microgrids serving municipal, school, fire, water, library, cultural, and emergency facilities. The 2016 concept combined 616 kW of CHP, 310 kW of proposed PV, 150 kWh of storage, 40 kW of existing PV, and 1.712 MW of existing emergency generators. It remained a planning study: Port Washington does not appear on NYSERDA's official Stage 2 award list, and no commissioning evidence was found.

Research status
Stage 1 feasibility study completed in April 2016; not built. The project received a Stage 1 award but is absent from the official Stage 2 award roster. The conclusion that it did not advance is an inference from NYSERDA's award records and the lack of subsequent construction or operating documentation.
Historical classification
Building
Reported capacity
See component specifications
Coordinates
40.83084, -73.69627
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 Hempstead – Port Washington Microgrid Feasibility Study?

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

Organization

Hitachi Microgrids

Technical lead for the feasibility study and proposed microgrid-control architecture [3]

Organization

Johnson Controls

Feasibility-study team member supporting building and energy-system analysis [3]

Organization

Johnson Controls, Inc.

Additional technical consultant [2]

Organization

Landmark on Main Street

Proposed host facility and community shelter/resource [3]

Organization

National Grid

Natural-gas utility for the proposed CHP systems [3]

Organization

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Technical-analysis team member [3]

Organization

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA)

NY Prize program funder and study publisher [2]

Organization

NYSERDA

NY Prize Stage 1 funder and program administrator [3][4]

Organization

Pace Energy and Climate Center

Legal, regulatory, and community-analysis team member [3]

Organization

Pace University Law School

Legal and regulatory consultant [2]

Organization

Port Washington Fire Department

Critical-load stakeholder and host of proposed node facilities [3]

Organization

Port Washington Public Library

Critical-load and community-refuge facility in the proposed network [3]

Organization

Port Washington Union Free School District

Host and critical-load stakeholder for school-system nodes [3]

Organization

Port Washington Water District

Critical-load stakeholder and proposed microgrid node host [3]

Organization

PSEG Long Island / Long Island Power Authority

Electric distribution utility and interconnection stakeholder [3]

Organization

Residents for a More Beautiful Port Washington

Community project participant [2]

Organization

Town of North Hempstead

NY Prize applicant, project sponsor, and owner of several proposed host facilities [3][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]
Feasibility design size
926 kW serving approximately 4.96 GWh/year [2]
Proposed CHP
11 units totaling 616 kW [2]
Proposed solar PV
Six new systems totaling 310 kW, plus one existing 40 kW system [2]
Proposed storage
Ten systems totaling 150 kWh [2]
Existing emergency generation
Seven units totaling 1,712 kW [2]
Modeled installed cost
$4.347 million before investment-tax-credit assumptions [2]
Proposed new generation
926 kW total: eleven CHP units totaling 616 kW and six PV systems totaling 310 kW [3]
Existing solar
One 40 kW PV system [3]
Proposed storage
Ten energy-storage systems totaling 150 kWh; aggregate power rating was not reported [3]
Existing emergency generation
Seven generator sets totaling 1,712 kW [3]
Study-area demand
4,957,372 kWh annual consumption, 2,812 kW maximum demand, and 566 kW average demand [3]
Modeled CHP output
3,714,393 kWh/year across the proposed installations [3]
Capital cost
Approximately US$4.347 million installed, or US$3.596 million after the federal investment-tax-credit assumption used in the study [3]
Benefit-cost result
At zero outage days/year the modeled benefit-cost ratio was 0.6; at 0.7 outage days/year it reached approximately 1.0, with a small positive net present value [3]
Modeled annual non-resilience benefits
Approximately US$351,877 in energy savings and US$42,000 in greenhouse-gas benefits [3]

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

Community microgrid controller

Hitachi Microgrids

Conceptual controller architecture for the five-node design; the feasibility report does not specify a commercial model number. [2]

02

Design optimization software

UL Solutions — HOMER Pro

Used to model and optimize the five nodes; this is a planning tool, not the field controller. [2]

03

Combined heat and power

Model not publicly disclosed

Eleven proposed natural-gas CHP units totaling 616 kW; final manufacturers and models were not selected in the feasibility study [3]

04

Photovoltaics

Model not publicly disclosed

Six proposed systems totaling 310 kW plus one existing 40 kW system [3]

05

Battery storage

Model not publicly disclosed

Ten proposed systems totaling 150 kWh, distributed among host facilities; chemistry and model were not finalized [3]

06

Emergency generation

Model not publicly disclosed

Seven existing backup generators totaling 1,712 kW, retained for resilience rather than counted as new clean generation [3]

07

Microgrid controls

Hitachi Microgrids

Conceptual active controllers coordinating local generation, storage, building-management systems, islanding, and load priorities [3]

08

Planning software

HOMER Pro

Used for feasibility optimization and economics; it was a study tool, not proposed operating control equipment [3]

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.

  • General

    The proposed microgrid would use solar, energy storage, energy efficiency, and natural gas generation. [1]

  • Generation

    The proposed microgrid would use solar, energy storage, energy efficiency, and natural gas generation [1]

  • Topology

    Five site-specific nodes were intended to coordinate as one resilience entity, but the study notes that the nodes might not all be physically interconnected. [3]

  • Islanding

    Each site microgrid was conceived to isolate locally and support prioritized critical loads with CHP, PV, storage, and existing standby generators. [3]

  • Node 1

    Landmark on Main Street, Port Washington Public Library, and two fire stations formed the central civic/emergency cluster. [3]

  • Other nodes

    Additional nodes covered school-district buildings, water-district infrastructure, fire headquarters, and the Town animal shelter. [3]

  • Energy mix interpretation

    The CHP output in the model equals roughly three-quarters of the listed annual load by arithmetic, but this is a planning-model result rather than measured generation. Solar and grid energy would supply the balance under normal conditions. [3]

  • Outcome

    NYSERDA lists the project among Stage 1 winners but not among the eleven Stage 2 awards, supporting classification as an unbuilt feasibility concept. [4][5]

Provenance

6 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]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
    NY Prize Stage 1 Award Winners

    NYSERDA · Primary source

  5. [5]
    NY Prize Stage 2 Awarded Projects

    NYSERDA · Primary source

  6. [6]
    Hempstead Port Washington Microgrid Feasibility Study (archived legacy record)

    Microgrid Projects / Internet Archive · Archived source

Continue exploring

Related projects in North America