Working on a manufacturing client in the Philadelphia area served by PECO Energy. Their monthly demand is running 850-900 kW but when I benchmark against similar facilities in their industry (metal fabrication), they're showing about 40% higher usage than the norm. The facility is 185,000 sq ft, built in 1987. Rate schedule is GP-Large. Anyone else seeing this kind of variance in older industrial facilities? Could be equipment efficiency issues but want to make sure I'm not missing something obvious in the benchmarking methodology.
PECO industrial benchmarking - seeing 40% higher usage than comparable facilities
Phil, that's a significant variance. In my experience with Indianapolis Power & Light industrial accounts, 40% over benchmark usually points to either HVAC inefficiency or production equipment running beyond optimal parameters. Have you looked at their power factor? Poor PF can inflate demand charges substantially. Also check if they're running any legacy equipment from the 80s that hasn't been upgraded.
Agree with Greg on the power factor angle. We had a similar case with Xcel Energy here in Minneapolis - metal fab shop showing 45% over benchmark. Turned out they had old welding equipment with terrible power factor, plus their compressed air system was oversized and running constantly. Client saved $18,000 annually just by rightsizing the compressor and adding VFDs.
What benchmarking database are you using Phil? We've found that DOE's Energy Star Portfolio Manager sometimes has outdated baseline data for specialized manufacturing. For Wisconsin metal fab facilities, we typically see 15-25 kWh per square foot monthly, but it varies wildly based on production intensity. Milwaukee area clients on We Energies GP-5 schedule average around 18-20 kWh/sq ft.
Linda, I'm using a combination of Energy Star and industry-specific data from ACEEE. You're right about the variation - this client is running about 28 kWh/sq ft which seems excessive. Greg and Hank, the power factor issue is interesting. I haven't pulled the interval data yet to check PF but that's definitely on my list now. The compressed air angle makes sense too - they have multiple compressors and I suspect they're not staged properly.
Phil, one thing to check - are you comparing apples to apples on the production schedule? We had a Cincinnati Manufacturing client on Duke Energy's DP rate who looked 35% over benchmark until we realized they were running 24/7 while the benchmark data assumed 16-hour operations. Once we adjusted for actual operating hours, they were only 12% over, which led to different efficiency recommendations.
Cecilia raises a good point about operating schedules. Out here in Fresno, we see a lot of ag processing facilities that look inefficient until you factor in seasonal variations. PG&E's E-19 schedule makes it even more complicated with TOU rates. Phil, definitely get the 15-minute interval data and map it against their actual production schedule before drawing conclusions.
Update on this would be great Phil. These benchmarking discussions always help refine our methodologies. I'm curious whether the variance held up after adjusting for operating patterns and power quality issues.