Energy teams bring us models that worked in the pilot and then met the real estate: a forecasting model that does not transfer to a new site, a plant-efficiency model nobody notices drifting, an old historian whose data quality quietly breaks the pipeline, or serving costs that grow with every site added. Some bring visual inspection of assets that has to sort findings by severity rather than by timestamp.
Where We Help
Separate engagements, each scoped to your assets and your data.
Model and Plant Monitoring
Reliability
Monitoring that shows a forecasting or plant model still behaves as it did when it was accepted.
Serving Cost
Cost
Profile the serving path and cut cost so it follows the workload, not the site count.
Asset Inspection
Reliability
Computer vision for asset condition, with findings triaged by severity and criticality.
How It Connects
Monitoring lands in the Production AI Monitoring Harness and Production AI Reliability; serving cost in the Inference Cost-Cut Pack; inspection in Computer Vision.
We have not published an energy case study yet. If a model is not holding up across your sites, tell us what changed.
Yes, if the signals are instrumented for it. We set up monitoring on the model and the plant signals it reads, with thresholds tuned to your normal operating variation, so a drift in heat-rate or output shows up when it starts rather than in the next report.
Not automatically. We check what the new site's data looks like against what the model expects (sensor calibration, sampling, missing history) and either normalise the inputs or show where the model needs retraining before anyone relies on it.
By measuring where the cost actually goes first. We profile the serving path, then change batching, model size or placement so cost follows the workload rather than the site count.