Skip to content
Pathline FoundryPathline Foundry

Projects and Results

Energy engineering projects and results.

Each example shows the decision Pathline helped clarify, the evidence used, the recommended action, and what happened next. Client names and identifying details may be withheld when confidentiality requires it.

Projects

Each case has its own page: who it was for, my role, where and when the work was done, how it ran, and what came of it.

Building performance compliance for Washington school districts

Washington K-12 school districts West Ridge Energy (2025 to present)

Evidence label: Identified Savings
18.5%
median recommended savings, as a share of site energy, across the Level 2 audits
9 of 10
Tier 1 buildings at or under target with the recommended measures, up from 6
18
buildings benchmarked across ten Washington school districts

Which buildings the standard covers, how far each covered building sits from its energy target, and the measures that can close the gap. Of the ten Tier 1 buildings, four were above target, by 6.1% to 34.5%.

  1. Benchmark
  2. Coverage
  3. Gap
  4. Audit and plan
  5. Portal
Read the case

Tier 1 buildings at or under their energy target

As benchmarked6 of 10 at or under target
With the recommended measuresModeled9 of 10 at or under target
  • At or under target
  • Above target
Ten Tier 1 buildings across the districts, against each building's own target. The second bar is what the audits' recommended measures would achieve, not a measured result.

Energy benchmark for an Idaho printing plant

A custom printing manufacturer in Idaho Pathline Foundry (2026)

Evidence label: Identified Savings
38% to 52%
of the bill estimated to be demand charges
$2,406 to $4,210
a year for each 10% off the monthly peak, nothing bought
254
printing plants in the peer benchmark

The morning start-up is likely the biggest lever: the highest 15 minutes of the month sets the demand charge, and demand charges are estimated at 38% to 52% of the bill. The plant also sells more per square foot than 76% of its peers, so a comparison on floor area alone would understate it.

  1. Walkthrough
  2. Peers
  3. Estimate
  4. Tariff
  5. Measures
Read the case

Share of the bill that is demand charges

Lower estimate38% demand charges
Higher estimate52% demand charges
  • Demand charges
  • Energy
Estimated from peer plants and Idaho Power's published Schedule 9 tariff, across the range of peaks the plant's hours make plausible. The bills would give the actual split; the demand share is the part the morning start-up can move.

Energy assessments for regional manufacturers

Manufacturers in Utah and Idaho DOE Industrial Assessment Center, University of Utah (2019 to 2025)

Evidence label: Identified Savings
13.3%
of plant energy cost, the average recommended savings
1.6 to 2.1 years
average simple payback, assessment by assessment
$12,795 to $75,867
a year in recommended savings per plant

Each assessment identified a set of measures worth 7.2% to 26.5% of the plant's annual energy cost, 13.3% on average.

  1. Bills
  2. Site visit
  3. Measures
  4. Report
  5. Decision
Read the case

Recommended savings as a share of each plant's energy cost

26.5%
7.2%
16.0%
9.0%
13.1%
13.7%
7.8%

Plastics molding

Chilled-water plant

Truck manufacturing

Feed mill

Wastewater plant

Led

Feed mill

Distribution facility

Led

Average, 13.3%

One column per assessment, 2019 to 2022, in order. Engineering estimates at the time of each assessment, not verified after installation. From seven of the assessment reports I worked on.

Load forecasting for a natural gas marketer

A natural gas marketer smartMFG Solutions (2023 to 2025)

Evidence label: Measured Result
33%
lower penalty cost per customer, against the three years before
$170,000
lower penalty cost over the 2024 to 2025 year than the baseline rate, normalized for customer count
30 days
from delivery to daily use in the nomination workflow

Customer-level forecasts could cut penalized deviation roughly in half against the three years before.

  1. Records
  2. Forecast
  3. Recommend
  4. Decide
  5. Track
Read the case

Penalty cost per customer

Baseline
33% lower
49% lower

2021 to 2024 baseline

2024 to 2025, actual

2024 to 2025, every recommendation followed

Modeled
Indexed to the 2021 to 2024 baseline, so the baseline is 100. Lower is better. The marketer was free to adjust each recommendation; the last column is what following them exactly would have produced. From smartMFG Solutions' FLOCK white paper, April 2025.

How to read the labels: a Measured Result was measured using a defined method over a defined period, and Identified Savings are what an engineering assessment found and estimated before anything was installed. Demonstrations use benchmark or composite data, never a client's.

The services behind these cases are on Services, and how an engagement runs is on Working With Pathline, and the software, shown on demonstration data, is on Tools.

From people I've worked with

Quoted with each person's permission, as they approved it.

“Across several projects I've worked on with RT, he has been dependable. Not only could I count on him to deliver on tight timelines, but he also consistently followed up and addressed new issues that arose years after the project was completed.”
Ethan Gallup, smartMFG Solutions LLC and the University of Utah
“Pathline continues to deliver. Working with Pathline has improved our business operation and affected our bottom line. RT is a valuable partner, easy to work with and incredibly effective.”
Noah Ripley, West Ridge Energy

Want to know what this could look like for your facility?

Tell me what you're dealing with and I'll tell you where I'd start.

Discuss a similar facility