Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Microgrid topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Miguel Power outlines $1.4M battery microgrid plan; Rico board leans toward public‑works site
Summary
San Miguel Power Association presented a multi‑year microgrid plan and a $1.4 million storage grant for Rico; after questions about safety, operations and lease terms, trustees generally favored siting the battery near the town’s public works/sewer plant rather than on Main Street.
San Miguel Power Association representatives briefed the Rico Board on June 17 about a planned battery storage microgrid funded in part by a $1.4 million state grant. The project aims to improve reliability on the challenging line serving Rico by providing local backup power and by monetizing some services to the transmission operator.
Terry (SMPA) said the association began planning in 2023, secured a $1.4 million grant in 2024 for the storage component, and has advanced design work toward procurement. SMPA initially proposed siting the system on school property in the historic district but, after fire‑department concerns and design constraints, proposed an alternative site south of the public works/sewer plant that would reduce permitting and façade requirements and allow trenching synergies (electric, sewer and potential district heating).
SMPA described the system roughly as a 1‑megawatt battery sized to provide 4–6+ hours of backup during low or average loads (longer during non‑peak periods). The utility said the battery would include built‑in monitoring, ventilation and internal suppression; manufacturer guidance recommends not applying water directly to cells. SMPA also explained opportunities to enroll the battery in programs that would draw on the bank during peak periods in return for financial credits while maintaining a town reserve for outages.
Trustees and residents questioned safety, runoff/fire suppression, noise, floodplain proximity and access. SMPA said the Telluride microgrid (smaller scale) sits near a school with acceptable code performance and that final engineering would address flood, access and environmental contingencies. Trustees pressed for clear lease terms, liability protections and answers on any town obligations tied to a site lease; SMPA acknowledged lease negotiations are pending and said the project team prefers a low‑ or no‑cost lease to keep the system cost effective.
The board indicated a general preference for the proposed public‑works site rather than Main Street and directed staff to pursue fire‑department signoff, negotiate lease terms and return with a formal agreement for approval.
