Ok, cleaning up connections will reduce voltage drop and power loss. Yet, taking the customer's power bill for the past year to establish a basis for comparisons will necessarily include motor starting loads...which disproportionately increase the overall yearly power consumption. So, even if there was just 1% improvement at the connections, based on the steady state "before and after" voltage and current measurements, that 1% savings would be applied (per contract) to the real world overall bill.
Assuming overall bill is 10% higher than the steady state measurements would predict...due to the disproportionate peak loading rates from heavy load startups, and the electrical steady state measurements don't consider that fact...then the "savings" would be inflated. The 1% savings would be multiplied by the starting load peak demand increased costs, so we end up with 1 X 10 = 10% apparent "savings".
Rather ingenious, I'd say..turning a steady state 1% into an inflated 10% figure for that portion of the bill attributed to heavier loads.
In simplified terms, lets say the steady state power consumption figures out to cost $100,000. But the yearly basis shows a power consumption that comes to $110,000 (because of the higher rates caused by heavy load demands ). Now I come along and clean up the connections and my measurements indicate that I have just decreased steady state estimated power consumption by 1%, a saving of $1,000. But, if I apply that 1% to the real world $110,000 figure, it results in $1,100. So, if I screen out the potential clients who have steady loads, and only work for those who have whopping big rate increases because they can't even out their energy consumption, then I can make it profitable to go through the effort to reconnect their terminations. Couple this with a good sales pitch so that other spin-off projects fall my way, it might turn out to be a pretty good business plan.
[This message has been edited by Elzappr (edited 04-19-2003).]
