Indiana is split between two ISOs. If you operate in NIPSCO territory in northern Indiana, you are in MISO. Rodan integrates storage assets into MISO programs, manages dispatch, and forecasts peak risk for industrial facilities where shift schedules, furnace cycles, and continuous process loads do not flex on demand.
Northern Indiana is one of the most energy-intensive industrial corridors in North America. Steel, foundries, auto manufacturing, and chemicals run continuous processes where a missed temperature window or a dropped shift costs more than any energy program will ever pay back. Rodan operates storage and demand response assets across five North American markets, including MISO. For NIPSCO-served industrial sites, that means a single team for integration, dispatch, and performance reporting, with operating logic built around what your process actually allows.
We model the actual load profile of an industrial Indiana facility: process minimums, shift patterns, furnace cycles, and the load that cannot be reduced under any economic incentive. The dispatch logic respects what is fixed and earns revenue on what is flexible.
The same Real-time Operations Center that dispatches Ontario's largest industrial demand response position dispatches MISO assets in NIPSCO. Industrial scale and tolerance for industrial constraints are the baseline, not exceptions.
Demand response, peak forecasting, and facility performance are operated by a single team. No handoffs between integration, dispatch, and reporting. Important for industrial customers who have already lived through energy projects with three vendors and three accountability gaps.
In one working session, we map how an existing or planned storage asset can be operated for MISO program value, peak demand reduction, and operational performance. Built specifically around NIPSCO territory and the industrial load profiles that define northern Indiana.
using interval data and operational context.
that respect process minimums, furnace cycles, and shift constraints.
across LMR, ancillary services, and economic demand response.
your team can use for internal approval and implementation.
We’ll confirm which programs you qualify for and handle all registration.
Storage discharged during MISO peak hours reduces metered demand at the moments that drive the capacity charge component of large industrial bills.
Forecast peak risk windows in advance, including the summer afternoon dynamic where industrial cooling, regional load, and MISO-wide system stress converge.
Reserve capacity for backup priorities, especially for processes where an unplanned shutdown is materially more expensive than any peak charge.
Define no-go boundaries inside the dispatch logic. Furnace temperatures hold. Critical loads stay covered. Participation does not compromise process integrity.
Indiana industrials often run multiple plants. FacilityIQ compares site performance against shared baselines and identifies underperformance at one plant before it spreads to others.
For organizations with NIPSCO and Duke Indiana or AEP sites, we keep the MISO operating layer separate from PJM so the two market structures are not blended into one report.
For NIPSCO-served industrial facilities, Rodan’s MISO product set is a bundle. Demand response is the participation layer. PeakIQ is the forecasting layer. FacilityIQ is the operational performance layer. Each piece can stand alone, but the bundle is how the value compounds for a continuous-process operation.
Continuous operational performance monitoring across sites. See site behavior in context, spot underperformance early, and compare across the portfolio, including NIPSCO sites and PJM sites under one view
Advance notification of MISO peak risk windows, calibrated to industrial load patterns in the NIPSCO zone. Dispatch the asset at the right hour rather than reacting to alerts after the peak forms.
Enrollment, dispatch, and execution for MISO Load Modifying Resource and ancillary services in the NIPSCO zone. Built for industrial duty cycles, not light commercial buildings.
Prefer email? Send us a message and we’ll respond within one business day.
PeakIQ supports DSM by giving operations lead time to act during peak-risk windows, using a response window your organization agrees to in advance.
Alerting is not the strategy, but it makes the strategy usable. Without a reliable trigger, sites either react too late, or they overreact too often. PeakIQ is positioned as an early-warning layer that supports disciplined execution, not guesswork.
A practical PeakIQ routine includes:
Recipient design: primary and backup contacts by site, including off-hours coverage.
Response window selection: aligned to approvals, staffing, and operational reality.
Alert-to-action mapping: each alert triggers a defined subset of playbook actions.
Action logging: a simple record of what was done and when.
Post-window review: confirm performance using interval data and update the playbook.
For procurement, PeakIQ improves predictability because peak response becomes consistent and measurable. For operations, it reduces disruption because actions are planned and pre-approved. For finance, it improves reconciliation because actions are tied to clear windows that can be reviewed and validated.
PeakIQ works best when it is paired with a playbook that is short, approved, and executable on any shift.
FacilityIQ helps multi-site DSM by making performance visible during the window across all sites, using a consistent view that supports governance and fast issue detection.
Multi-site programs often fail due to inconsistency. One site executes well, another site misses a step, and the portfolio outcome becomes difficult to explain. FacilityIQ is positioned to reduce that gap by keeping performance tied to the same time window across sites, rather than relying on post-event spreadsheets.
What portfolio leaders typically need:
A single view of performance across sites during key windows.
Early detection of underperformance while corrective action is still possible.
A consistent reporting format for procurement and finance.
An operating record that supports playbook updates.
FacilityIQ also supports practical troubleshooting. When a site underperforms, the team can focus on the real causes: staffing coverage, controls behavior, process constraints, or data issues. That reduces internal debate and improves the playbook over time.
For Indiana portfolios, the value is not just visibility. It is standardization. Standardization is what makes DSM repeatable and scalable without increasing administrative burden.
DSM is the broader strategy. Demand response is one way to monetize part of that strategy, when a site is eligible and can deliver verified performance.
Think of DSM as the operating system: you identify peak risk, define allowed actions, assign owners, and build a routine the site can run safely. Demand response is an application: you enroll in a program and get paid to reduce load during specific event windows, under defined rules.
For Indiana decision-makers, the difference matters because:
DSM can start immediately as an internal operating discipline, even before any program enrollment.
Demand response adds obligations including measurement, verification, and settlement processes.
DSM reduces risk by making execution repeatable, which improves confidence if demand response is added later.
A clean way to manage both is to standardize the operating fundamentals:
A protected-load list, approved by operations and safety.
A short action list that works across shifts.
A clear go or no-go decision owner, with backups.
A post-window review routine that improves the playbook over time.
Then, if demand response participation is a fit, the organization is not starting from zero. It already has the governance, documentation, and execution habit that keeps performance stable and reporting credible.
A DSM playbook is a short, written set of approved actions that your site can execute during peak-risk windows without compromising safety, quality, or uptime.
The best playbooks read like an SOP, not a brainstorm. Each action includes an owner, timing, a recovery step, and a stop point. Stop points are the guardrails that keep the program safe and credible. They should be specific, easy to interpret, and authorized by the right stakeholders.
A practical playbook structure includes:
Tier 1 actions: always allowed, low-risk actions that can be executed quickly.
Tier 2 actions: actions that require explicit approval, with a named approver.
Off-limits list: actions the site will not take due to operational risk.
Stop points: conditions that end participation immediately.
Recovery steps: how the site returns to normal operation safely.
To make this shift-ready, the playbook should also include:
Primary and backup contacts by shift.
A single decision owner for the event window.
A simple method to log actions taken.
A playbook that depends on one expert being on shift is not scalable. The goal is reliable execution that can withstand staffing changes and production variability.
Demand side management in Indiana is a planned approach to reducing or shifting electricity use during peak periods to manage peak-related costs and support grid reliability.
For a large facility, DSM is not a one-time project. It is an operating discipline that answers three practical questions: Which hours matter most, what actions are allowed on-site, and how will the organization prove the result to finance. The “prove it” part matters because DSM only survives budget cycles when the reporting is clean and repeatable.
A procurement-ready DSM program typically includes:
Scope: which meters and sites are in scope, and which are not.
A playbook: a short list of approved actions that are safe, reversible, and shift-ready.
Stop points: conditions that end participation immediately, written in plain language.
Measurement: interval data review tied to the actual time window when actions were taken.
Finance validation: a routine to reconcile outcomes without spreadsheet rebuilding.
DSM often overlaps with demand response, where eligible. In that case, DSM becomes the operating backbone that supports performance during event windows. The key is staying realistic. A smaller action set that the site can execute consistently is more valuable than an aggressive target that breaks down on nights, weekends, or high-production days.
Rodan’s role is to help you put structure around this so the plan works across procurement, operations, and finance, without introducing operational risk.
The strongest DSM candidates are loads that can be reduced or shifted for short windows, are reversible, and can be executed consistently across shifts.
The exact list depends on site type, equipment, and constraints, so the best practice is to start with operating boundaries and interval patterns, then select actions that fit. In many large facilities, teams evaluate a mix of supporting systems and scheduling levers.
Common categories organizations often review include:
HVAC and ventilation adjustments: within approved temperature and air quality limits.
Compressed air optimization: pressure bands and staged operation within equipment limits.
Pumps, fans, and supporting systems: sequencing and scheduling changes that do not destabilize processes.
Process scheduling moves: shifting discretionary steps away from peak-risk windows.
Deferrable loads: timing changes for loads that can move without operational risk.
Procurement leaders should focus less on the category and more on the controls:
Is there a protected-load list?
Are stop points written and enforceable?
Is there a recovery step to avoid downstream issues?
Can the site execute the same actions on any shift?
DSM works when the action list is small, approved, and repeatable. That is what protects operations and creates results that finance can reconcile.
They should expect a consistent, auditable link between three things: the window when actions were taken, the interval data that shows performance, and the billing outcome that finance reconciles.
If reporting is vague, DSM becomes hard to defend. If reporting is structured, DSM becomes a controllable lever that procurement can include in planning and that finance can trust during close.
A finance-ready DSM reporting package typically includes:
Window-based reporting: performance tied to specific time windows, not weekly averages.
Site-level visibility: results by meter and by site, especially for multi-site portfolios.
Exception handling: a way to flag anomalies early and document root cause.
Attribution discipline: a consistent approach for explaining outcomes without hand-waving.
Procurement should also look for governance signals:
Was the playbook followed?
Were stop points triggered?
Was the decision owner available?
Were actions logged, and were recovery steps completed?
These details matter because they explain performance variance in a way leadership understands. They also prevent the “we think it worked” problem that often kills programs after one season.
The most important reporting rule is simple: if finance cannot reconcile it, it will not scale.