Your first step toward energy independence is not purchasing equipment or calling contractors. The best place to start is with a microgrid feasibility study that proves whether your site and electrical infrastructure can support reliable onsite generation. If you take one thing from this article, it is this: a feasibility study prevents expensive redesigns by producing a defensible, data-driven blueprint for technical, regulatory, and financial decisions.
Organizations approach E-Finity each year after planning microgrids around solar or batteries, only to later discover that their reliability requirements demand 24/7 power generation. In one publicly referenceable case, a mid-Atlantic manufacturing facility shifted from a battery-heavy concept to a microturbine CHP architecture after the feasibility study revealed recurring 7 MW spikes their earlier model failed to capture. The corrected design increased projected uptime to above 99.9 percent and eliminated the need for diesel backup. A feasibility study surfaced constraints before capital was deployed.
A feasibility study is a structured engineering and economic evaluation that answers one question: can a microgrid reliably support your facility, under real operating conditions, at a cost and footprint that makes sense. To do this correctly, the study must analyze interval load data, evaluate site infrastructure, model multiple resource combinations, quantify outage performance, and test economic scenarios under realistic fuel and tariff conditions.
Understanding Your Energy Requirements and Reliability Objectives
Reliable modeling begins with understanding how your facility actually uses energy. Baseload, peak load, thermal load, and outage tolerance determine the technical shape of the microgrid. To do this, collect at least twelve months of interval data with 15-minute granularity or better. This reveals load volatility, seasonal patterns, and the presence of repetitive spikes that storage alone cannot sustain.
For example, a logistics hub with automated conveyors may show short, sharp peaks driven by equipment cycling. In these cases, batteries handle fast transients, while a microturbine block maintains baseload. If your facility has high-value thermal loads such as process hot water or absorption cooling, CHP improves system efficiency by using the turbine’s exhaust heat productively. This dual-output advantage is a primary reason microturbines frequently anchor critical-facility microgrids.
A quick comparison helps clarify where each technology excels:
| Load Characteristic | Engineering Need | Most Suitable Resource |
| Stable 500 kW to multi-MW baseload | Continuous generation with high uptime | Natural gas microturbine CHP |
| Fast spikes lasting seconds to minutes | Instantaneous ramp response | Lithium battery storage |
| Facilities that cannot tolerate even momentary outages | Seamless transfer and redundancy | CHP plus storage hybrid |
CHP works best when electrical and thermal loads run predictably. Batteries work best when peak shaving or smoothing ramp rates. Having both allows the feasibility team to design a system that fits actual demand rather than abstract assumptions.
Assessing Your Site and Existing Infrastructure
A microgrid design is constrained by the electrical equipment already on the ground. Switchgear capacity, transformer ratings, cable lengths, and grounding schemes determine whether a microgrid can interconnect without major reconstruction. To do this, have engineers complete a full electrical room assessment, document breaker sizes, verify arc-flash ratings, and map feeder pathways.
One real E-Finity project illustrates the importance of this step. At a large hospitality campus in the Caribbean, the feasibility study revealed that existing distribution equipment could not accept inverter backfeed without significant protection upgrades. Because the issue surfaced early, the engineering team redesigned the interconnection scheme and avoided mid-project delays. This is the type of infrastructure constraint that only becomes visible during a proper feasibility process.
Environmental limits also matter: local noise ordinances may dictate enclosure selection; air quality rules may require formal emissions modeling; fire code separation distances may affect battery placement. A feasibility study catalogs these constraints and folds them into system sizing and layout before design begins.
Selecting the Right Technology Mix With CHP as the Anchor
The feasibility study must test multiple design paths. This often includes:
• CHP-centric configurations using natural gas microturbines
• Battery-weighted configurations prioritizing peak shaving
• Hybrid architectures balancing thermal recovery with storage
• Solar-integrated systems with seasonal optimization
To do this properly, identify your primary mission criterion. If uptime is critical, model long-duration outages and fuel availability. If cost stability is the goal, simulate tariff structures, demand-charge behavior, and thermal recovery value.
In typical mid- to large-scale commercial operations, CHP offers several technical advantages:
• Microturbines operate on low-pressure natural gas and tolerate wide fuel swings
• They deliver very low NOx emissions, simplifying permitting in urban regions
• They maintain output across extreme temperatures
• They provide heat suitable for domestic hot water, process loads, or absorption chillers
• They achieve high availability because they have one moving part and minimal vibration
Storage then fills operational gaps: fast-ramping support, smoothing transitions, and bridging the seconds between grid loss and island stabilization. Solar improves long-term economics where real estate allows but rarely anchors a resilience-focused system without CHP or other firm generation.
Financial and Economic Modeling Based on Real Operating Conditions
Economic feasibility requires more than a simple payback calculation. A proper study models CAPEX, OPEX, fuel use, maintenance intervals, tariff behavior, incentive eligibility, and lifecycle efficiency patterns. To do this, request that your feasibility team build at least three cases:
• Conservative: high fuel cost, flat tariff escalation
• Expected: historical average patterns
• High-performance: optimized thermal recovery and favorable tariff shifts
For a government operations facility with high demand-charge exposure, the feasibility model showed that adding a 1 MW CHP plant cut demand charges by over 40 percent and stabilized long-term operating costs because natural gas pricing was more predictable than electricity tariffs. Cases like this demonstrate why financial modeling must incorporate real tariff behavior, not broad approximations.
A clear comparison table helps leadership evaluate tradeoffs:
| Configuration | Benefit | Consideration |
| CHP with moderate storage | High reliability and thermal efficiency | Higher initial capital |
| Heavy storage with minimal thermal recovery | Lower emissions profile under some tariffs | Lower resilience during multi-hour outages |
Without this side-by-side modeling, decision-makers often overestimate the value of storage or underestimate the financial impact of thermal recovery.
Operational Models and How to Evaluate Them
A strong feasibility study defines exactly how the microgrid will operate in real-time, not just during emergencies. To do this, engineers must model:
• Grid-parallel operation
• Islanding transitions
• Load-following behavior
• Thermal recovery schedules
• Battery dispatch logic
• Ramp-rate interaction between assets
This is where microturbines excel. They provide steady baseload with extremely low mechanical stress, while batteries provide millisecond support. A hospital feasibility study, for instance, may show that the microturbines carry 90 percent of load during normal operation while batteries provide instantaneous support the moment the utility grid dips. This combination minimizes transfer disturbances, which is essential for clinical environments.
Key operational question: How quickly must your system stabilize during a grid event. Microturbine-battery hybrids routinely offer sub-second stabilization, while storage-only systems may struggle during multi-hour outages where depth-of-discharge becomes a limiting factor.
Regulatory, Safety, and Compliance Requirements
Permitting determines feasibility just as much as engineering. Natural gas microturbines often simplify the approval process because their ultra-low emissions meet many municipal thresholds without aftertreatment. However, battery systems add their own regulatory layers, including NFPA 855 spacing, ventilation, and fire zone requirements. To do this correctly, your feasibility study must list every applicable approval step:
• Utility interconnection review
• Protection coordination studies
• Air quality permitting needs
• Local sound ordinances
• Fire code spacing for battery arrays
• Fuel supply verification
• Any islanding-related protective device upgrades
In many regions, islanding is the most complex part of the approval path because utilities require proof that the microgrid will not backfeed during faults. This often requires protection relays, synch-check logic, and documented test procedures. A feasibility study should identify these requirements early so no late-stage redesigns occur.
Risk Assessment and Resiliency Planning
A reliability-focused feasibility study must test system performance under real outage conditions, mechanical failures, and seasonal extremes. To do this, engineers should simulate scenarios such as:
• 24-hour grid outage with peak thermal loads
• A microturbine unit offline during maintenance
• Fuel pressure fluctuations
• Battery degradation over time
• Worst-case seasonal ramp rates
A coastal data facility, for example, may require modeling of both hurricane-driven outages and high-humidity thermal loads. In such cases, a CHP-backed microgrid often maintains cooling capacity more effectively because thermal recovery supports absorption chillers even when electrical load spikes.
Resiliency modeling clarifies how much redundancy you need: N+1 for moderate-risk facilities, N+2 for mission-critical operations.
Deliverables You Should Expect From a High-Quality Feasibility Study
A proper feasibility study must deliver actionable engineering documents, not a conceptual slide deck. Expect:
• Interval load analysis with peak and baseload characterization
• Multiple modeled configurations with uptime projections
• Detailed CHP and storage performance modeling
• Fuel use profiles and thermal recovery estimates
• Single-line diagrams with interconnection assumptions
• Economic modeling with sensitivity tests
• Permitting and interconnection pathway documentation
• A phased, realistic implementation roadmap
These deliverables allow leadership to justify the project internally and provide the basis for detailed engineering.
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
- Sizing systems based on monthly averages instead of interval data
- Assuming storage alone can sustain long outages
- Ignoring switchgear and transformer limitations
- Treating permitting as an afterthought
- Requesting financial models that exclude maintenance or efficiency decay
Recommendations Based on Your Situation
If you operate a mission-critical facility, request outage simulations showing performance during multi-hour disturbances and equipment failures.
If your priority is predictable long-term cost, emphasize CHP economic modeling and fuel escalation scenarios.
If your jurisdiction has strict permitting requirements, microturbines may offer the simplest compliance pathway because of their low emissions profile.
If your facility uses significant thermal energy, make sure the feasibility study quantifies the dollar value of heat recovery so leadership sees the full economic picture.