MGPC Rotating Header Image

Enigin EnergyMaps Case Study at Laurel Boys and Girls Club

Note: If you are looking for Enigin UL Listed Eniscope Wholesale Pricing, click here! We have updated our Eniscope since this article was published – a must see!

An important follow-up to the Laurel Gazette story on MGPC’s EnergyMaps project at Laurel Boys and Girls Club originally posted at:

Laurel Boys and Girls Club EnergyMaps Project reported by The Laurel Gazette

Over the winter, Laurel Boys and Girls Club was consuming almost as much energy at night as during the day, even though it was unoccupied (how was this discovered? By using the Enigin Eniscope to monitor and datalog the energy usage over the internet 24/7).

It was determined that volunteers were tampering with the heating controls, which resulted in electric resistance heaters inefficiently pumping heat all night long.

A simple and inexpensive solution was to padlock the thermostats. The monthly energy savings was in the THOUSANDS of dollars.

If you consider that the price to lease the EnergyMaps system runs from $ 91 per month, then saving this many thousands of dollars is like winning the jackpot in the lottery – the savings continue month to month – absolutely not proportionate to the amount invested.

Can your business afford not to invest in Energy Maps?

What kind of business manager would not invest just over $ 90 to save thousands of dollars?

3 Comments

  1. mgpc says:

    Utilities and smart meters: If a local utility plans to spend over $ 300 BILLION on smart meters for all residence and business customers, and has successfully lobbied the Public Service Commission to charge its subscribers an energy saving surcharge on their power bills, this would be justifiable if the end goal was to reduce CO2 emissions due to peak power plants coming online (if the smart meters help customers reduce their peak power and their overall kWh in conjuntion with some incentive plan).

    The Public Service Commission allowed the utility to recover its "costs" associated with this investment in new equipment.

    However, the utility has estimated its energy savings from the program at over $ 300 billion from avoidance of expensive peak energy purchases and rebates from its ISO (again, this posting remains generic, not naming the guilty.)

    So, if the power utility is recovering its costs through cheaper power and greater efficiencies which include less meter readers employed, then why does the Public Service Commission allow the utility to recover costs from its hostage customers? Isn't this double-dipping?

    Furthermore, the smart meters are revenue-grade communications-capable meters which replace your existing analog revenue meters. Why not keep the sufficiently accurate analog meters in place and just add a 1-2% accuracy sub-meter with communications capability? Such a meter should not cost over $ 2,000. The electric utility could greatly reduce the meter readers' hours by using estimates from the sub-meters to do something similar to budget billing, with any overages or shortfalls handled once a year by a manual meter reading.

    The result would be a lower cost to the consumers, less material waste (throwing away old meters), and hopefully lower energy costs since the end customer would still have access to their real-time energy usage, an awareness which has been shown to reduce energy usage by up to 30% (you can't control what you can't measure!)

    More information on smart meters can be found at:

    http://www.marylandgreenpower.com

Leave a Reply