Microgrid
ProjectsSubmit a project

Home / Directory / Port Jefferson Microgrid Feasibility Study

North America / Commercial & demonstration

Port Jefferson 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 facts19
Sources reviewed6
Evidence reviewed2026-07-20

Port Jefferson was a 2015–2016 NY Prize Stage 1 feasibility concept for a large village resilience network, not a built microgrid. The design would have combined 3.2 MW of existing hospital/water/wastewater standby diesel, 5.2 MW of new natural-gas CCHP/reciprocating generation, 298 kW total solar, 550 kW/2.2 MWh of four-hour batteries, hospital absorption chillers/thermal storage, and four isolation switches over PSEG Long Island distribution infrastructure. It is distinct from National Grid's Port Jefferson power station and later power-station repowering/storage discussions.

Research status
The Stage 1 feasibility report was completed August 31, 2016. The project does not appear among NYSERDA's awarded Stage 2 detailed-design projects, and no procurement, construction, commissioning, or operating evidence was found through July 2026. The Village's current Power Plant Working Group continues to explore future uses for the separate National Grid generation site; that does not establish that the NY Prize microgrid was built. Status should therefore remain feasibility completed / not advanced to documented implementation.
Historical classification
Community
Reported capacity
See component specifications
Coordinates
40.94649, -73.06927
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 Port Jefferson 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 Engineering

Electrical/microgrid technical participant on the feasibility team. [2]

Organization

D&B

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

Organization

D&B Engineers and Architects

Lead feasibility-study engineer and report preparer. [2]

Organization

GE Energy Consulting

Power-system and NY Prize technical consultant; GE's current case-study page calls the client the 'Town of Port Jefferson,' although the applicant/report identify the Village. [2][5]

Organization

Global Common

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

Organization

Global Common LLC

Commercial/financial and microgrid business-model consultant on the Stage 1 team. [2]

Organization

Mather Hospital and St. Charles Hospital

Largest proposed critical-load anchors and hosts of most existing diesel and proposed CCHP generation. [2]

Organization

NYSERDA

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

Organization

PSEG Long Island

Serving distribution utility whose existing circuits, poles, wires, and substations were assumed for the concept; no build agreement is documented. [2]

Organization

Village of Port Jefferson

NY Prize applicant, municipal sponsor, and intended community/MESCO participant. [2][3]

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 served load
44,206 MWh/year; 8,916 kW noncoincident peak and 7,788 kW modeled coincident July peak. The boundary included roughly 1,300 residences, 250 small businesses, two hospitals, water/wastewater, schools, Village facilities, fire/DPW, ferry, and downtown loads. [2]
Existing standby diesel in concept
3.2 MW total: Mather Hospital 2 x 500 kW; St. Charles Hospital 900 + 300 + 250 + 250 + 100 kW; Suffolk County Water Authority 100 kW; wastewater plant 250 kW. These were existing emergency units, not a new central plant. [2]
Proposed new firm generation
5.2 MW natural gas: 1.6 MW CCHP at Mather, 1.6 MW CCHP at St. Charles, and a 2 MW gas reciprocating generator at St. Charles. [2]
Proposed solar
298 kW total: existing 50 kW at Mather and 48 kW at the Spear property, plus a proposed 200 kW array at the middle/high-school campus. [2]
Proposed electrochemical storage
550 kW/2.2 MWh total: 250 kW/1 MWh at the wastewater plant and 300 kW/1.2 MWh at the water authority, both four-hour concepts. No vendor, chemistry, or procurement was selected in Stage 1. [2]
Thermal systems
Two proposed 313 kW absorption chillers at the hospitals. The report's tables cite Mather thermal storage at 469 kW/4.69 MWh, while narrative material references 1.16 MW of cooling storage; this internal scope/rating inconsistency was never resolved by a final design. [2]
Stage 1 economics
Estimated capital cost US$19.405 million. With assumed US$7 million NY Prize and US$4.5 million PSEG-LI CHP support, the report modeled normal-operation NPV US$8.72 million, benefit-cost ratio 1.1, and IRR 9.8%; private financing was judged difficult without incentives. These are study assumptions, not realized costs/returns. [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

Existing diesel generators

Model not publicly disclosed

Multiple hospital, water, and wastewater standby units totaling 3.2 MW; manufacturer/model and emissions-upgrade condition were not inventoried in the public Stage 1 report. [2]

02

Proposed CCHP and gas generation

Model not publicly disclosed

Two 1.6 MW hospital CCHP plants and one 2 MW reciprocating gas generator; technology class was defined but vendors/models were not selected. [2]

03

Proposed batteries

Model not publicly disclosed

Two four-hour systems totaling 550 kW/2.2 MWh; no chemistry or supplier was committed. [2]

04

Proposed switching

Model not publicly disclosed

Four new isolation switches using existing PSEG-LI distribution topology to create the island boundary. [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.

  • General

    The proposed microgrid would incorporate a mix of existing and new combined heat and power, solar, and energy storage. [1]

  • Generation

    The proposed microgrid would incorporate a mix of existing and new combined heat and power, solar, and energy storage [1]

  • Modeling and dispatch

    DER-CAM was used for normal-operation economic dispatch and sizing, with separate outage/islanding engineering. Results depend on assumed tariffs, gas availability, incentives, load profiles, and equipment costs from the 2015–2016 study period. [2]

  • Business model

    The report proposed a microgrid energy-services company (MESCO) with long-term microgrid energy-service agreements among municipal, institutional, utility, and generation parties; none is documented as executed. [2]

  • Fuel dependency

    The concept assumed firm natural-gas service/reinforcement by November 2019 and retained diesel. Resilience benefits therefore depended on gas-system availability and fuel arrangements that were assumptions, not completed infrastructure. [2]

  • Outcome evidence

    Port Jefferson is absent from the official NY Prize Stage 2 award list. That, combined with the lack of later construction records, is strong evidence the Stage 1 concept did not progress under NY Prize, though it is not a formal cancellation notice. [4][6]

  • Identity warning

    Do not merge this village critical-load concept with National Grid's Port Jefferson power station, its repowering proposals, or any separate battery proposals at that generation site. GE's 'Town of Port Jefferson' wording is an alias/mislabel for the Village-sponsored study. [2][5][6]

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]
    Port Jefferson Microgrid NY Prize Stage 1 Report

    Village of Port Jefferson / NYSERDA · Primary source

  3. [3]
    NY Prize Stage 1 Award Winners

    NYSERDA · Primary source

  4. [4]
    NY Prize Stage 2 Awarded Projects

    NYSERDA · Primary source

  5. [5]
    NYSERDA Microgrids Case Study

    GE Vernova · Primary source

  6. [6]
    Power Plant Working Group

    Village of Port Jefferson · Primary source

Continue exploring

Related projects in North America