Utilities
Evaluate retrofit programs across building portfolios. Consistent methodology. Defensible results. Thousands of buildings — not one at a time.
The Challenge
Utility efficiency programs run on deemed savings \u2014 percentage estimates applied to equipment categories, validated by evaluation contractors who arrive 18 months after installation to argue about free-ridership and baseline assumptions.
The actual meter data sits in the utility's systems. But there's no physics bridge between the meter data and the program assumptions. Evaluators compare pre/post consumption statistically. Everything else is an assumption.
$45M+
Typical annual rebate program budget — with savings claims routinely disputed by evaluation contractors.
18 months
Before evaluation contractors deliver M&V results. Programs run without verified savings data in the interim.
~30%
Typical evaluator reduction to claimed program savings. Free-ridership and baseline arguments dominate proceedings.
The meter data exists. The program data exists. What's missing is the physics that connects them.
The Approach
Roovie doesn't estimate savings from equipment categories. It models each building from first principles and simulates the full annual energy profile. The savings is the difference between two complete simulations.
Model every building behind a substation, on a feeder, or in a program territory. Same engine, same methodology, comparable results across thousands of buildings.
Each efficiency measure runs as a full building simulation. The savings projection accounts for the building’s specific envelope, orientation, climate, and systems.
Upload 12 months of actual meter data per building. The platform calibrates each simulation against reality. Every projection starts from a validated baseline.
Outcomes
Identify which buildings have the highest savings potential from specific measures. Design rebate tiers based on actual building physics. Direct program dollars where they produce the most demand reduction per dollar spent.
Compare pre-intervention simulation against post-intervention meter data — building by building, month by month. No statistical sampling. The physics predicted X. The meter shows Y.
For every constrained substation, model the buildings behind it. Identify targeted efficiency measures that reduce coincident peak demand at lowest cost per kW.
Every savings claim is backed by a calibrated building simulation with traceable assumptions. Thousands of individual building models — not a spreadsheet with deemed savings percentages.
NanoTech Advantage
When Roovie models thousands of buildings across a service territory and identifies which ones lose the most energy through solar heat gain and poor envelope performance — NanoTech's advanced materials provide the treatment.
Roovie Physics Engine
NanoTech Materials
Platform M&V
No other company connects building-level physics to building-level materials with before-and-after verification in one stack. The diagnostic tool and the treatment are built by the same team.