Microgrid
ProjectsSubmit a project

Home / Directory / King’s Contrivance Village Center

North America / Island & remote community

King’s Contrivance Village Center

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

CoverageDetailed public record
Named organizations4
System facts16
Sources reviewed4
Evidence reviewed2026-07-20

Kings Contrivance Village Center in Columbia, Maryland was one of two public-purpose microgrids proposed by Baltimore Gas and Electric in December 2015. The Kings Contrivance site would have used 2 MW of natural-gas generation, islanded during major distribution outages, to serve a cluster of grocery, pharmacy, fuel, restaurant, bank, and other critical commercial services. The Maryland Public Service Commission denied the two-site proposal without prejudice on July 19, 2016. It was never an operating 3 MW microgrid, and it included no solar or battery storage.

Research status
Denied and not built. Maryland PSC Order 87669 rejected the proposal and Rider 12 tariff while allowing BGE to submit a redesigned project later. The reviewed PSC record and subsequent NREL regulatory case summary show no approval for this site; no later BGE or PSC evidence of a Kings Contrivance resubmission, construction, or operation was located.
Historical classification
Island & remote community
Reported capacity
3,000 kW
Coordinates
39.15867, -76.86633
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 King’s Contrivance Village Center?

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

Organization

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE)

Proposed developer, owner, operator, generator owner, and tariff applicant. [2][4]

Organization

Howard County

Host county; conditionally supported the concept subject to siting approval, public participation, and timely removal after the pilot. [2]

Organization

Kings Contrivance Community Association and Village Center merchants

Community stakeholder and intended host/beneficiaries of resilient commercial service during outages; merchants were not asked to co-invest in the filed plan. [2]

Organization

Maryland Public Service Commission

State regulator; denied the proposal as filed without prejudice and rejected the proposed Rider 12 surcharge. [2]

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.

Proposed generation
2–3 MW small-scale generation at each proposed site [1]
Proposed primary fuel
Natural gas; diesel alternative where gas infrastructure was unavailable [1]
Proposed Kings Contrivance generation
2 MW natural-gas-fired generation; diesel was the generic alternative if gas infrastructure proved unavailable [2][3]
Energy mix
Natural gas only in the Kings Contrivance design; no renewable generation, CHP, or energy storage was proposed [2][3]
Estimated Kings Contrivance cost
$7 million, based on BGE's estimate of approximately $3.5 million per MW of supported load [2]
Two-site pilot cost
Approximately $16.6 million for Kings Contrivance plus the separate 3 MW Edmonson Village site [2]
Proposed residential surcharge
$0.04/month in year one and $0.13/month in year two for a 930 kWh/month average residential customer, continuing while assets depreciated if no wider rollout occurred [2]
Potential market revenue
BGE estimated roughly $215,000/year per generation unit from participation in PJM energy, capacity, ancillary-service, or demand-response markets [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 generators

Model not publicly disclosed

Two megawatts of small-scale natural-gas generation were specified functionally, but generator count, manufacturer, model, heat rate, emissions controls, and black-start equipment were not identified in the PSC order. [2][3]

02

Islanding and controls

Model not publicly disclosed

The design would disconnect the commercial-service footprint from BGE's distribution system during an extended outage and energize selected critical businesses. Control/protection vendors and switching topology were not disclosed. [2]

03

Storage and renewables

Model not publicly disclosed

None proposed. The Commission specifically criticized the absence of renewable generation, combined heat and power, and storage as a lost opportunity for fuel diversity and forward-looking demonstration value. [2]

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.

  • Resilience purpose

    The microgrid was intended to keep grocery, pharmacy, fuel, restaurant, bank, and similar commercial services open during significant or extended outages, potentially serving residents who could travel to the village center. [2]

  • Why the Commission denied it

    BGE had not quantified customer-interruption/resilience benefits, conducted a cost-benefit analysis, justified socializing all risk through a surcharge, pursued grants or beneficiary investment, defined a major event, or shown that customers could reach and resupply the site during disasters. [2][3]

  • Siting and process defects

    BGE selected the two sites without initial customer, county, or state-agency participation, relied on 2010-2012 SAIFI/SAIDI data, did not explain factor weighting, and did not establish a competitive third-party generation process. [2]

  • Capacity correction

    The 2-3 MW language in the order describes the range across two proposed sites: Kings Contrivance was 2 MW and Edmonson Village was 3 MW. The recovered 3 MW value for Kings Contrivance is therefore incorrect. [2][3]

  • Regulatory outcome

    Denial was without prejudice, meaning BGE could file a better-supported pilot later; it was not an authorization to construct. Absent a later approved filing, the correct project status remains denied/unbuilt rather than planned or operational. [2]

Provenance

4 sources

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

  1. [1]
    Order No. 87669, Case No. 9416 — BGE Microgrid Order

    Maryland Public Service Commission · Primary source

  2. [2]
    Order No. 87669, Case No. 9416 – BGE Microgrid Order

    Maryland Public Service Commission · Primary source

  3. [3]
  4. [4]

Continue exploring

Related projects in North America