1. Pepsi Beverages Company
Electrical Conservation Project
Lee Allaire
Eric Bartram
Daniel Grant
Makenzie Bryk

2. The Project Case Combating Rising Costs New Blow Molder Will Use…
Electrical Conservation is a Must
Average cost of commercial energy rose 9.8% in 2010
$342 per person per year
Average Person uses 4,437 Kw/H per year
Pepsi Plant equivalent 2,786 people
Pepsi 2010 projected total electrical consumption: 12,359,900 Kw/H
New blow molder will use roughly 9 million Kw/H (75% increase)
Act Now. Do It Today. Get Results.

3. Agenda The Project Case The Core Issue Constraints Methodology
Solutions
Awareness Plans
Quick Wins
Capital Expenditures
Conclusion

4. The Core Issue
This is the Core Issue: Pepsi is projected to spend more money on its electrical bill while concurrently using less electricity. Why this paradox?
The answer is rising and fluctuating cost of electricity.
Ask yourself: what is the cost driver in this situation? Cost driver is actual electrical consumption (how many KWHs used?)
How do we mitigate volatility of prices and customer demand?
Pepsi is projected to spend more $ while using less KWHs…

5. Constraints Action Plans Save At Least 5% Payback Within 2-3 Years
Do Not Affect Production
As previously stated, our project team was charged with identifying areas of electrical waste and generate action plans that would help the plant better utilize its power.
Our combined action plans had to:
Save the plant at least 5% of their total electrical consumption.
Have the ability to be paid back in full within 2-3 years.
Could not affect production or the quality of production in any way.

6. Methodology Visit Facility Met With Pepsi Management Research
Primary
Secondary
Shut-down Weekend
Brainstorming Session
Get Estimates
Determine Payback and Kw/H Savings
Colorado KVAR
Power Secure
Xcel Energy
CES
OK Solar (lighting company)

7. Unadjusted Total Savings 39.31% $375,395
Solutions
Quick wins are defined as any solution requiring less than a $2,000 expenditure
Unadjusted Total Savings 39.31% $375,395

8. Awareness Plans – 2.97% Production Awareness Office Awareness
Maintenance Checklist
Replacement Schedules
Compressed Air
Office Awareness
Computers
Lights
Fridges

9. Quick Wins – 5.64% Office Refrigerators Lighting Sensor Changes
45 exist, proposed to remove 28
Lighting Sensor Changes
10 and 20 min  2 min
Office Lighting Efficiency
Smart Thermostats
Computer Automation
EnerNOC
Xcel “events”
EnerNOC is a 3rd party contracted by Xcel to purchase energy from companies in the case of an event. Currently Pepsi is contracted from 500 KW, increase that to 1,500 KW.

10. Capital Expenditures – 30.70%
Kilovolt-Ampere-Reactance (KVAR)
Captures, Stores, and Recycles Unused Power
Battery Chargers
Used to Charge Pallet Jacks
Variable Frequency Drives
Motors, Compressors, and Warehouse Fans
Indoor/Outdoor Lighting
Power Secure
3rd Party Backup Power Generation
Power Secure vs. EnerNOC

11. 31.88% $304,441 Conclusion Set Targets. Keep Score. Win.
Projected Adjusted Savings
31.88%
$304,441

12. Questions?

13. Conflicting Solutions
EnerNOC vs. PowerSecure
One or the other
Disregard the 4.55% of EnerNOC
KVAR vs. VFDs
VFDs first, reduce the effectiveness of KVAR
KVAR the accounts for 6.16%
Computer Automation vs. Office Awareness
Weighted against each other
Automation 0.10%, Awareness 0.16%

14. Solution Savings Breakdown
Quick Wins
Office Fridges: 0.48%
Light Sensors: 0.20%
Office Lighting Efficiency: 0.17%
Smart Thermostats: 0.04%
Computer Automation: 0.2%
EnerNOC: 4.55%
Awareness Plans
Office Awareness: 0.63%
Production Awareness: 2.34%
Capital Expenditures
KVAR: 8.79%
Power Secure: 8.09%
Battery Chargers: 2.42%
VFDs: 9.13%
Indoor Lighting: 0.22%
Outdoor Lighting: 2.05%
For total amounts, we assumed that the quick win computer automation was the same as the office awareness plan computer section: as such, we only used this number once to calculate totals.
Also, since the plant cannot pursue EnerNOC and Power Secure together, we assumed they would prefer Power Secure with the higher savings.