Skip to main content

New Battery storage can help reduce Global Adjustment exposure

->
I am a
1-866-999-5006 Talk to an Energy Expert ->

Built for multi-site operations and tight uptime

Michigan portfolios often mix plants, distribution, and critical facilities. Rodan helps you line up site limits, shift-ready actions, and reporting that stands up in procurement and finance reviews.

Site limits are documented early

Protected load, approved actions, and stop points are written down with site owners.

Execution works on any shift

Short checklists with owners, timing, and recovery steps, tailored by facility.

Finance sees a clean record

Interval performance stays tied to billing validation, so results stay clear.

Brochures

REQUEST AN ENERGY ASSESSMENT SPEAK WITH OUR EXPERTS ->
Key dates & deadlines

Michigan key dates and deadlines in MISO (2026)

MISO participation comes with short windows and real operational requirements. Start early so sites are ready when demand rises, and so participation never turns into a scramble.

Annual milestone
Get assessed early

Planning Resource Auction (PRA)

The PRA offer window is brief each year. Readiness work belongs well ahead of that window, with site limits, data readiness, and internal approvals already settled.

Plan now
Start preparation now

Next PRA planning cycle

Start preparation now. Confirm operating boundaries, assign shift coverage, and keep the workload off your busiest weeks.

Always Open
Year-round

Demand Response Resources

Economic demand response for energy and ancillary services. Enroll anytime, then operate to site limits and document performance consistently.

Enroll anytime

CHECK MY ELIGIBILITY

We’ll confirm which programs you qualify for and handle all registration.

What this means to an organization in Michigan

Lower peak-driven exposure

Target the hours that drive variance with a repeatable operating routine.

Cleaner budget planning

Reduce month-to-month surprises with measured actions and clear review.

Revenue option from flexibility

Use demand response where eligible, aligned to site limits and risk tolerance.

Less operational disruption

Use approved actions and stop points that protect safety and uptime.

Portfolio consistency

Standardize execution and reporting across sites without forcing identical actions.

Fewer billing surprises

Validate bills earlier, reduce disputes, and shorten month-end churn.

REQUEST AN ENERGY ASSESSMENT SPEAK WITH OUR EXPERTS ->
Platform solutions

Products relevant to energy demand management in Michigan

Explore the intelligence and operations products available here.

FacilityIQ™ ->

Window-based visibility across sites, so issues surface early.

Available in
  • IESO
  • PJM
  • NYISO
  • AESO
  • MISO
PeakIQ™ ->

Peak-risk alerts that help teams act in time, using an agreed response window.

Available in
  • IESO
  • PJM
  • NYISO
  • AESO
  • MISO
SettlementIQ™ ->

Billing validation support so finance can reconcile outcomes with less rework.

Available in
  • IESO
  • PJM
  • NYISO
  • AESO
  • MISO
FlexOps™ ->

Operate storage with clear priorities, guardrails, and repeatable dispatch routines.

Available in
  • IESO
  • NYISO
  • AESO
Demand Response ->

Program support built around site limits, measured performance, and follow-through.

Available in
  • IESO
  • PJM
  • NYISO
  • AESO
  • MISO
GridOps™ ->

Close data and connectivity gaps that block participation, measurement, and settlement confidence.

Available in
  • IESO
  • AESO
REQUEST MORE INFORMATION
Free strategy session

Michigan energy demand management assessment

Share a recent utility bill and basic operating limits, and Rodan will map peak exposure, demand response fit, and a low-disruption operating routine.
  • Peak exposure review tied to billing structure and interval patterns
  • Site action list with owners, timing, recovery steps, and stop points
  • Performance visibility approach using FacilityIQ™ for window-based tracking
  • Finance validation approach using SettlementIQ™ for invoice review and exceptions

Prefer email? Send us a message and we’ll respond within one business day.


150+
MISO Participants
$25M+
Annual Revenue
1.5 GW
Managed Capacity
20+
Years Experience
FAQ

Michigan MISO energy market FAQs

PeakIQ™ is designed to turn peak risk into operational lead time. Many peak-driven charges and risk moments are not caused by average usage. They are caused by a small number of hours when grid conditions, weather, and system demand align. Michigan facilities that face PJM exposure can benefit when they know peak windows early enough to plan and execute a safe response.

PeakIQ™ provides alerting across week-ahead, day-ahead, and day-of horizons, with in-day updates, and the alerts are supported by Rodan’s monitoring capability. The value for procurement is straightforward: fewer surprises and fewer missed opportunities to reduce peak exposure. The value for operations is equally important: time to coordinate actions within defined guardrails. A two-hour response requirement is very different from a six-hour response option. A plan that fits the plant’s operating rhythm is more likely to be executed consistently. PeakIQ™ also supports better internal alignment. When alerts are consistent and credible, teams can standardize who gets notified, what actions are triggered, and how confirmation is tracked. That reduces friction between energy managers and site leaders.

PeakIQ™ works best when paired with a playbook that defines actions by severity level and season. It also pairs well with FacilityIQ™ and SettlementIQ™ because alerts are only the start. Performance needs to be measured, validated, and tied to financial outcomes. Program rules and peak definitions vary by utility and market structure, so PeakIQ™ should be treated as a decision-support layer that feeds your internal process and program participation strategy.

Demand response in PJM is a market mechanism that pays qualified customers to reduce electricity use when the grid needs help, often during high-demand periods or emergency conditions.

For Michigan facilities in PJM, the practical sequence is consistent even though the specific program details can vary by utility or offering. A site is assessed for fit, enrolled into the appropriate program pathway, and prepared to perform with clear response actions. During an event window, the facility reduces load relative to an established baseline using pre-approved actions.

Performance is measured using interval data and settlement rules, then payments and outcomes are calculated after the fact. Procurement leaders should focus on four realities. First, results depend on the site’s load profile and operational flexibility. Second, telemetry and data quality are not optional. They are core to proving performance. Third, response expectations need to match what operations can execute, which is why playbooks and response windows matter. Fourth, internal coordination is often the biggest blocker. A program can look good on paper, then fail in execution if roles are unclear.

Rodan’s approach is to treat demand response as an operating capability. We help define what the site will do, what it will not do, and how it will respond across different event types. We also support monitoring, event communication, and post-event validation using tools that map event windows to facility performance and surface issues early. Program names, lead times, and payment structures can shift, so the right posture is a durable process that stays valuable even as program details evolve.

FacilityIQ™ helps multi-site portfolios by providing window-based visibility across sites, so leaders can see performance during the window and address issues quickly. Consistency is the main portfolio problem. A single site that drifts from the routine can skew results and create noise in reporting.

A portfolio view supports:

  • One way to compare sites during the same window

  • Early detection of underperformance

  • A shared record for procurement, operations, and finance

  • Better prioritization of coaching and playbook updates

Window-based visibility also improves troubleshooting. When a site underperforms, the team can focus on concrete causes: staffing coverage, constraints that day, controls behavior, or data gaps. That reduces internal debate and improves the playbook over time.

FacilityIQ™ also helps standardize governance. Sites do not need identical actions. They need the same rhythm: alert, execute within limits, verify performance, and review outcomes. That rhythm is what keeps programs stable across multiple facilities.

FacilityIQ™ is built for multisite visibility and execution discipline. Michigan organizations often have multiple facilities, and procurement leaders want consistent performance without building a reporting process from scratch after every event.

FacilityIQ™ aggregates consumption data across sites and maps event windows onto facility performance so teams can see what happened during an activation. The operational value is early detection. If one site underperforms, it is better to see it quickly, address root causes, and reduce the likelihood of a settlement dispute later. That matters for procurement because settlement issues create uncertainty, delay payments, and reduce confidence in the program. FacilityIQ™ also supports internal accountability. Sites can be compared against expected behavior, and leadership can see which facilities execute playbooks consistently. That creates the conditions for scaling DSM and demand response Michigan efforts across the portfolio.

FacilityIQ™ is especially helpful when sites sit under different local utility relationships or have different operating profiles. A single dashboard view lets energy teams spot anomalies and focus support where it is needed. FacilityIQ™ is commonly paired with Demand Response services because Rodan can manage enrollment and operations, then use FacilityIQ™ to validate execution and performance. It also pairs with SettlementIQ™ because performance data becomes more valuable when it is tied to expected financial outcomes and settlement drivers. Programs and market rules vary, so the tool’s role is not to replace program documentation. Its role is to make execution and performance visible in a way operations and finance can trust.

PeakIQ™ helps by giving operations lead time and a consistent trigger before peak-risk windows, so sites can run an approved checklist without last-minute coordination.

Peak routines often fail for simple reasons: the site gets notice too late, the decision owner is unavailable, or actions vary by shift. PeakIQ™ supports consistency by putting alerting and response timing into a repeatable routine.

A practical PeakIQ™ setup includes:

  • Primary and backup recipients at each site

  • Off-hours coverage for nights and weekends

  • A response window that matches approvals and staffing

  • A short checklist tied to alerts

  • A quick action log

Procurement benefits because peak routines become easier to defend and report. Operations benefits because the team has time to coordinate and stay inside safe limits. Finance benefits because actions can be tied to a defined window, which supports review and reconciliation.

PeakIQ™ does not replace operating boundaries. It supports execution inside boundaries that were approved in advance. That is what keeps peak response consistent across seasons and staffing changes.

A curtailment playbook is a short, written checklist of approved actions a site can execute during peak or event windows, with owners, timing, recovery steps, and stop points. Ownership is shared: operations owns safety and feasibility, procurement owns scope and governance, and finance owns the reconciliation routine.

A playbook that works in the field has:

  • Actions that are reversible and repeatable

  • Roles that are assigned by function, not one person

  • Stop points written in plain language

  • Recovery steps that protect the process after the window

  • A simple method to record what happened

A practical structure is:

  • Always-allowed actions that carry low operational risk

  • Approval-required actions with a named approver

  • Off-limits actions that the site will not take

  • Stop points that end participation immediately

  • Recovery steps that return the site to stable operation

The decision owner matters. A site needs one person who can make the go or no-go call during a tight window. Backups matter just as much, since event windows do not follow office hours.

Rodan supports playbook development by working within your site limits. The goal is not a long list. The goal is a checklist that can be executed the same way on any shift.

Procurement leaders should evaluate a DSM plan the same way they evaluate any operational strategy tied to financial outcomes: controllability, measurability, and governance. Start with controllability. Which loads can be adjusted within a defined window without compromising safety, quality, or throughput? A DSM plan that requires heroic action will not scale. Move to measurability. Does the site have reliable interval data, and is the telemetry path ready to support program participation and settlement validation? Data gaps create disputes and uncertainty, which reduce confidence at the executive level. Governance matters just as much. Who owns the playbook? Who has authority during an event window? Who communicates to operations, finance, and leadership, and who signs off on what actions are allowed?

A strong plan includes a clear RACI-like structure even if it is written in plain language. It also includes a repeatable calendar and readiness routine tied to summer and winter peak periods. Procurement should also look at portfolio complexity. Many Michigan organizations have sites in multiple states or market footprints. The plan should be consistent enough to scale, with local adjustments at the site level.

Rodan supports this evaluation with an assessment that maps flexibility, screens program fit at a high level, and produces an execution plan with clear limits. The output should be something procurement can defend internally because it ties actions to measurable outcomes, not aspirational claims.

Demand-side management for a large Michigan manufacturer usually covers peak routines, load shifting, and demand response participation where eligible, all built around production limits and safety requirements.

Manufacturing sites often have flexibility, but it does not come from “shutting down.” It comes from controlled choices: sequencing, staging, and short window adjustments that protect quality and uptime. The actions must be repeatable across shifts, or the program will drift.

A practical DSM scope often includes:

  • Peak routines that reduce spikes and smooth ramps

  • Scheduling changes for discretionary steps that can move without risk

  • Operational checklists for high-load windows

  • Clear stop points tied to safety alarms, quality limits, and equipment constraints

  • Verification tied to interval data and the exact time window

Procurement and finance care about predictability. Operations cares about staying inside limits. The program works when those priorities are written down and treated as standard operating practice.

Demand response participation, when it fits, uses the same discipline. It adds event windows and settlement follow-through, so the same playbook becomes the backbone: who owns the call, who executes the steps, what stops participation, and how performance is reviewed. Rodan helps Michigan manufacturers build that routine so participation is measured, repeatable, and manageable on the plant floor.

DER optimization becomes important when a site has onsite assets that can change the economics of DSM and demand response participation. Batteries, backup generation, and flexible controls can support peak shaving, event response, and operational resilience.

In Michigan, the value comes from aligning the asset’s operating priorities with the market and tariff realities the facility faces. A battery installed for resilience can also reduce peak exposure if dispatch rules are set correctly. It can support demand response events when program fit is confirmed and when dispatch does not conflict with critical load coverage. DER optimization requires discipline. The facility needs clear priorities, clear limits, and a dispatch plan that respects maintenance, warranty terms, and reliability requirements. Procurement leaders should focus on value stacking only after execution basics are stable. A site that cannot reliably execute a simple DSM playbook will struggle to capture additional value from a more complex asset strategy.

Rodan supports DER optimization by assessing the asset, reviewing constraints, screening program fit, and designing a dispatch approach that supports peak reduction and program participation without undermining resilience. The approach should also connect back to measurement and settlement. If a battery discharges during an event window, the team needs to know what effect that had on the baseline, the measured load reduction, and the settled outcome. That is where Energy Intelligence tools and settlement validation matter. Market and utility rules vary, so DER optimization should be framed as a site-specific plan that is built around your data, your risk tolerance, and your operating priorities.

Demand side management in Michigan is the set of actions a large energy user takes to actively shape when and how the facility uses electricity, with a focus on peak hours that drive a disproportionate share of total cost. In a PJM context, demand side management Michigan teams care about two linked outcomes: reducing peak-driven charges and creating optionality to earn revenue through demand response participation when a site is a fit. The work is practical, not theoretical. It starts with understanding the site’s interval data and identifying which loads can move, pause, or ramp within defined limits.

Many sites find flexibility in HVAC strategies, compressed air, pumps, process staging, battery dispatch, or noncritical loads that can be sequenced. Procurement leaders usually want one thing: predictability. Demand side management supports that by turning peak exposure into a plan with clear triggers, roles, and response windows. PJM program participation is one pathway within that plan.

Program rules, baselines, lead times, and event structures vary, so the right approach is to treat demand response as a controlled operating capability rather than a one-time signup. Rodan’s role is to translate the market requirements into an execution plan, manage enrollment and telemetry needs, support event operations, and tie results back to settlement outcomes using tools that make performance visible and defensible.

SettlementIQ™ is designed to connect operational performance to financial outcomes. Demand response and DSM efforts create value only when the organization can validate results, explain drivers, and reconcile settlement outcomes without a long back-and-forth. Michigan demand response participation tied to PJM exposure can involve multiple parties, baselines, event windows, and settlement steps. That complexity creates room for confusion.

SettlementIQ™ helps teams track expected outcomes and compare them to settled results, then identify gaps that can signal data issues, execution issues, or interpretation mismatches. Procurement leaders benefit because they get a clearer audit trail that supports budgeting and internal reporting. Finance teams benefit because the story is measurable and repeatable, not a one-time analysis.

Operations teams benefit because issues can be traced back to a specific site action or constraint rather than becoming a vague “program problem.” SettlementIQ™ also improves scale. When an organization adds more sites, the settlement workload grows quickly if everything is manual. A structured approach makes it possible to expand participation without expanding headcount at the same rate.

SettlementIQ™ fits best as part of a stack: Demand Response services to manage participation and operations, PeakIQ™ to anticipate risk windows, FacilityIQ™ to validate site execution, and SettlementIQ™ to reconcile outcomes. Exact settlement mechanics vary by program. The point is to build a reliable way to explain what happened and what it meant financially, using consistent data and reporting that can stand up to internal review.

Demand side management is the umbrella. Peak load management is one high-value use case within it.

Demand side management Michigan programs and strategies cover a wide set of actions that shape load, improve control, and reduce cost and risk over time.

Peak load management focuses on a narrower objective: reducing demand during the specific hours that drive peak-related charges or system stress exposure. In practice, many organizations start with peak load management because it is easier to explain internally and easier to measure. You find the peaks, identify controllable drivers, build a playbook, and execute during the windows that matter.

Demand side management expands beyond that by adding program participation options, longer-term operational improvements, and asset optimization. A battery can be dispatched for peak shaving. A controls upgrade can smooth ramp rates. A multisite organization can standardize playbooks and performance reporting across plants and campuses. Procurement leaders benefit because peak load management addresses budget volatility directly, and demand side management adds additional value streams and resilience benefits over time.

Rodan supports both. PeakIQ™ helps teams anticipate peak risk with actionable alert windows. FacilityIQ™ helps validate that sites executed as intended during an event. SettlementIQ™ helps connect actions to financial outcomes and settlement drivers. Demand response adds a revenue component when program fit is confirmed. The right approach is a staged plan: start with a peak-focused playbook, then expand scope when execution discipline is proven and the organization wants more value from flexibility and assets.