In a food and beverage plant, industrial refrigeration and steam usually account for the largest share of the CFE bill, and both run around the clock. MEP benchmarks where that energy goes, quantifies the peak demand and power factor cost buried in your billing, and documents the fixes, with no tie to any equipment vendor.
Request an assessment. Written reply within 1 business day. NDA signed before confidential data changes hands.Ammonia refrigeration holds product temperature while the boiler plant drives pasteurization, cooking, sterilization, and clean-in-place. Both run every hour the plant operates.
Refrigeration, steam, compressed air, pumps, and motors together set a load profile at high utilization every hour, which makes the peak demand charge and time-of-use structure a large and constant cost.
Refrigeration and steam systems drift out of efficient operation through fouling, poor controls, and oversized equipment, and the cost of that drift never appears on a single line. Low power factor adds a penalty a plant can carry for years.
A refrigeration fault or power event that breaks the cold chain puts product and food safety compliance at risk, and spoiled product is immediate and total. Most vendors offering to fix either problem also sell the compressors, boilers, or controls.
The systems that matter, with the bill analyzed against them. Where a measure improves cost or reliability, MEP models the savings and payback and writes a vendor-ready scope so procurement can run comparable bids. MEP does not sell or install the equipment.
Evaluate compressors, condensers, evaporators, controls, defrost, and part-load behavior against ASHRAE-style methodology, including heat recovery opportunities.
Review generation, distribution, condensate recovery, sanitation demand, and the coincidence between the heaviest thermal loads and production timing.
Isolate the peak demand and power factor cost drivers inside the CFE billing structure, and test how much of the heaviest load lands inside the punta window.
Test generation efficiency, pressure, leakage, and controls, then value storage or standby capacity sized to the loads that protect product against interruption.
Identified savings and savings verified under M&V are kept separate throughout, so finance books only what has been proven.
What is the effect on energy cost per unit produced, and what can finance book?
Traceable assumptions with identified and verified savings kept separate
Does the measure hold product in spec, and when can it be done?
Measures scheduled around production and sanitation cycles
Is work on the ammonia plant and the boiler scoped safely?
Scopes respecting NOM-005-STPS, NOM-020-STPS, NOM-011-STPS, and NOM-001-SEDE for ISO 45001 execution
Can we document performance for retailer and export requirements?
ISO 50001-compatible outputs, CO2 per measure, comparable bids on identical terms
From a completed Level 2 audit
Pages from a completed audit of a Mexican manufacturing plant. Client name, address, and account data have been removed. Everything else is presented as delivered.
Figures shown are for one facility with its own baseline and tariff. Identified savings have not been verified under M&V. MEP does not guarantee savings.
Review the depth of the deliverable, then speak with MEP about the facility, the decision, and the appropriate next step.
To start, MEP needs your tariff classification, basic equipment information on the refrigeration and boiler plant, and the operating schedule. Consumption and metering data are requested after the first conversation, under NDA.
Request the benchmarkA manufacturing plant in San Luis Potosí engaged MEP for an ASHRAE-style energy audit. The audit identified roughly MXN 8,400,000 in annual savings across five categories of energy conservation measures, and the audit fee was recovered within the first billing cycle after implementation began.
These are identified savings, modeled from measured data and documented engineering assumptions and not yet confirmed under M&V, so finance should treat them as a costed opportunity rather than a booked result. This was a manufacturing engagement, not a food and beverage one. Results vary with facility size, tariff class, operating schedule, and baseline energy intensity, and MEP does not guarantee savings.
Request an assessment. An MEP advisor will provide a written reply within 1 business day and a scoped proposal, then build the benchmark over roughly 10 days. Where you proceed, MEP writes vendor-ready scopes and governs the bid as owner's representative, with no stake in which vendor wins.
Request the benchmarkOrganizations remain confidential. Verification contacts are available during qualified evaluation.
The energy audit recommendations were practical and supported by solid financial and operational rationale, making them easy to evaluate and act upon.
The energy study was very well done and delivered real results. The team took the time to understand how our plant actually operates and provided clear, practical recommendations.
The support we received on our Power Purchase Agreement was excellent. The team conducted a detailed and professional review.
Feedback from completed engagements. Client identities remain confidential. Individual results depend on facility profile, tariff, contract terms, and execution.
MEP will show you where cost and risk sit at this plant before you commit to anything. Four fields to start.
