Anda di halaman 1dari 22

Energy Pro–USA’s

NEW PURCHASING PARADIGM
Lessons Learned From YOU ‐ Our Clients
● You want ‐ RESULTS not reports
● You want ‐ Accurate measurement of RESULTS
● You want ‐ Implementation to insure RESULTS
● You want ‐ A partner that provides capital to
enhance RESULTS

The Only Thing Energy Pro Sells Is RESULTS.
Only Gets Paid for Savings
Not for Reports

Only for Savings

Not by
the Hour
Points of Favorable Difference

Bundled Implements
Services Improvements
Energy Investor Energy Supplier
Management Networks
System Environmental Benefits
Value Differentiators

Energy
Benchmarking Accountability
For Results
Increased
Efficiency Special 
Projects Team
Measurement
Modeling Sustainability

Engineering
Equipment Supplier

Analysis Reports
Project Developer

Lending Training

Points of Parity With Other Energy Suppliers
Energy Pro‐USA AT‐A‐GLANCE
AT‐A‐GLANCE
NEW PURCHASING PARADIGM

er
n
 Part
l
t ria
d us
n
vy I
a
He

WHAT CAN EP DO FOR YOU?
Heavy Industrial Partner Receives:
Improved Efficiency
Lower Energy Costs
Infinite IRR
Increased Shareholder Value
EP 50% to
Investment Customer
 E n e r gy Costs
d
More Projecte
Investment Savings
More 
Savings Dollarized Energy Savings
50% to
Energy Pro

Utility Bill Savings Repay Energy Pro Investment
Energy Management

Best Practices

at 

Best‐in‐Class Organizations
INTRODUCING ENERGY PRO–USA’S
ENERGY OPTIMIZATION   • VALUE PROPOSITION

A Roadmap to Increasing Contributed Margins

•Establishing an Energy Requirement Plan:
The New Best Practice Standard

•Systematic Benchmarking and
Data‐Based Decision Making 

•Asset Renewal and Expansion
Energy Best Practices
New Standard
Total Energy Use

i c a l  R e q u i rement
H is to r

New St
andard

Time

The “Energy Requirement Plan” is the optimum amount of  energy 
required per unit of production and its impact on energy use.
Measure Operating Performance Against 
the Energy Requirements Plan

Metering Savings From


Energy History Production & Measurement
Analysis Temperature Data Models

Management
Energy Daily/Monthly Comparison Of Review/Energy
Requirement Plan Energy Report Actual To ERP Coordinator

Analysis Of
Equipment &
Operating Process Variance
Procedures Modification Explanation
Action
Needed

Action
Taken

Results
Real Time…
Information
Knowledge Sharing
Decision
Team Work

Fix the Problem Before It Is Broken
Heavy Industrial 
Partner
Country Asia Location Plant 1 Area Hot Rolling Mill Reports Benchmark Reports
Heavy Industrial 
Partner
Country Americas Location Plant 2 Area Enterprise Reports Savings Evaluations

Natural Gas Usage Electric Usage


44,000
44,000
42,000 42,000
40,000 40,000

MMBTU
MMBTU

38,000 38,000

36,000 36,000
34,000
34,000
32,000
32,000
30,000
30,000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31

Actual Predicted Actual Predicted

Steam Usage Total Energy Usage


44,000 44,000
42,000 42,000

40,000 40,000
MMBTU
MMBTU

38,000 38,000

36,000 36,000

34,000 34,000

32,000 32,000
30,000 30,000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31

Actual Predicted Actual Predicted


Heavy Industrial
Partner
Country Americas Location Plant 2 Area Enterprise Reports Daily Energy Report
Predict
Actual Savings % $
Power Plant Total MMBTU Model ed

DAILY SAVINGS REPORT May 2006 Date Day Usage Usage MMBTU Variance Savings

05/01/06 Sat 42,459 36,931 5,528 13.0% $$$

05/02/06 Sun 42,467 37,367 5,100 12.0% $$$

05/03/06 Mon 41,692 37,025 4,667 11.2% $$$

Power Plant Total Usage ALERT 05/04/06 Tue 40,609 36,871 3,738 9.2% $$$

46,000 05/05/06 Wed 41,443 37,231 4,213 10.2% $$$

44,000 05/06/06 Thu 39,191 35,491 3,700 9.4% $$$

42,000
05/07/06 Fri 37,646 35,866 1,780 4.7% $$$
MMBTU

40,000
05/08/06 Sat 43,220 39,793 3,427 7.9% $$$
38,000
05/09/06 Sun 39,080 35,245 3,835 9.8% $$$
36,000
34,000 05/10/06 Mon 38,657 35,498 3,160 8.2% $$$

32,000 05/11/06 Tue 39,078 34,539 4,539 11.6% $$$

30,000 05/12/06 Wed 38,333 32,898 5,435 14.2% $$$


1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
05/13/06 Thu 38,592 33,229 5,363 13.9% $$$

Actual Predicted 05/14/06 Fri 41,207 36,058 5,150 12.5% $$$

05/15/06 Sat 40,675 34,880 5,795 14.2% $$$

05/16/06 Sun 40,958 35,503 5,455 13.3% $$$

05/17/06 Mon 41,347 36,194 5,153 12.5% $$$

05/18/06 Tue 41,663 36,531 5,132 12.3% $$$

05/19/06 Wed 40,809 36,309 4,500 11.0% $$$

Performance Trend -- MMBTU Savings ALERT 05/20/06 Thu 41,412 38,155 3,257 7.9% $$$

8,000 05/21/06 Fri 42,529 39,353 3,175 7.5% $$$

6,000 05/22/06 Sat 39,482 34,574 4,908 12.4% $$$


M M BTU

4,000 05/23/06 Sun 41,733 37,993 3,739 9.0% $$$

2,000 05/24/06 Mon 42,008 39,605 2,403 5.7% $$$

0 05/25/06 Tue 41,288 42,685 -2,397 -5.5% $$$

-2,000 05/26/06 Wed 41,931 37,846 4,086 9.7% $$$

-4,000 05/27/06 Thu 41,546 37,617 3,929 9.5% $$$

05/28/06 Fri 40,742 36,496 4,245 10.4% $$$


1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
05/29/06 Sat 41,905 36,456 5,450 13.0% $$$

Predicted Minus Actual 05/30/06 Sun 40,696 36,915 3,781 9.3% $$$

05/31/06 Mon 38,405 35,320 3,085 8.0% $$$

TOTAL: 1,262,803 1,131,475 131,327 10.4% $$$

MTD: 1,262,803 1,131,475 131,327 10.4% $$$


How Accurate Are We ?
Monthly  Annual
Our Model Accuracy Accuracy
This exhibit calculates the
power of our model as a  Enterprise Optimization Model Accuracy 5%  1%
predictive tool

The models have statistical coefficients indicating they explain the vast majority of the variations in 
energy use.  Monthly deviation were found to be less than plus or minus 5%; yearly deviation less than 
plus or minus 1%.  In summary, ENVIRON believes that the Enterprise Optimization Models are 
appropriate for estimation of the actual energy savings achieved and for generating invoices to 
customers. ‐ ENVIRON
Energy intensive manufacturers using 
Energy Pro’s EOM Technology are

10% more
efficient
in managing energy than industrials that don’t.
A Financial Best Practice Standard

…Leaders using Capital from Energy Pro’s

“Industrial GlobalFund” can shift

$100 Million of Budget Dollars

Into More Strategic Projects

When you don’t have to show expenses related


to improvements, you quickly create profitability
Substantiated Value‐Created Case Histories
Substantiated Value‐Created Case Histories

Goodyear Tire Harbison Walker


A.P. Green Refractories Wagner Castings
Laclede Steel Continental General Tire
Ethyl Petroleum Sun Chemical
Gulf States Steel Shell Oil
USS/ Kobe Steel  GE Plastics
Clark Oil Ball Foster Glass
Kropp‐Forge CPC
Bethlehem Steel‐ Velsicol
Sparrows Point Division  Thermal Ceramics
Burns Harbor Division Uniroyal
Pennsylvania Steel Technologies DSM
Lackawanna Division Sunoco
U.S Enrichment Corporation Uniqema
Citgo

Value Models demonstrated savings between  8% and  12%
of all fossil fuels‐total energy consumed.
Customer / Site Energy Budgets Annual Savings Savings %
Gulf States Steel $ 26,000,000 $ 2,230,000 8.6%
USS/Kobe $ 25,000,000 $ 1,820,000 7.3%
Bethlehem Steel Sparrows Point $ 69,000,000 $ 6,106,000 8.8%
Algoma Steel $ 19,600,000 $ 1,175,000 6.0%
Bethlehm Steel PST $ 25,000,000 $ 2,500,000 10.0%
Bethlehem Steel Burns Harbor $ 105,000,000 $ 11,150,000 10.6%

Bethlehem Steel Lackawanna $ 14,000,000 $ 1,725,000 12.3%


Laclede Steel $ 15,000,000 $ 1,900,000 12.7%
Bethlehem Steel Lukens $ 30,000,000 $ 2,325,000 7.8%

What was the Clark Oil


AP Green
$
$
30,000,000 $
5,007,800 $
2,830,000
901,000
9.4%
18.0%

Impact on the  Harbison Walker


Ethyl Petroleum
$
$
4,500,000
6,000,000
$
$
592,800
1,200,000
13.2%
20.0%

Bottom Line? Wagner Castings


Continental General Tire
$
$
11,000,000 $
13,000,000 $
1,000,000
1,800,000
9.1%
13.8%
Sun Chemical $ 2,600,000 $ 427,000 16.4%
GE Plastics (50% 1yr) $ 5,200,000 $ 416,000 8.0%
Ball Foster Glass $ 5,581,336 $ 384,000 6.9%
CPC $ 16,000,000 $ 2,300,000 14.4%
Velsicol $ 3,500,000 $ 420,000 12.0%
Thermal Ceramics $ 6,000,000 $ 450,000 7.5%
Uniroyal $ 8,000,000 $ 600,000 7.5%
DSM $ 7,000,000 $ 988,000 14.1%
SPI $ 4,500,000 $ 400,000 8.9%
Improvements Uniqema $ 2,300,000 $ 235,000 10.2%

in Performance Citgo
Englehardt
$
$
7,000,000
30,000,000
$
$
596,000
3,200,000
8.5%
10.7%

Per Customer Terra (Started 1-17-00)


Flexsys (Started 3-6-00)
$
$
16,000,000
4,200,000
$
$
1,260,000
598,866
7.9%
14.3%
DSM $ 16,000,000 $ 2,000,000 12.5%
Velsicol $ 2,367,120 $ 430,000 18.2%
El Dorado $ 5,728,782 $ 1,554,000 27.1%
Hoeganaes $ 13,588,813 $ 1,852,000 13.6%
Noveon-Akron $ 2,090,000 $ 437,000 20.9%
Noveon-Avon Lakes $ 5,570,200 $ 1,243,000 22.3%
Astaris $ 4,897,000 $ 1,447,000 29.5%
Combined- Steel $ 328,600,000 $ 30,931,000 N/A
Average-Steel $ 36,511,111 $ 3,436,778 9.35%

Combined Total- Other Industry $ 237,631,051 $ 29,561,666 N/A

Average- Other Industry $ 8,801,150 $ 1,094,877 13.89%


What was the Impact on the Bottom Line?

Improvements in Performance 
Per Industry Sector

ENERGY BUDGETS ANNUAL SAVINGS SAVING %

Combined Steel $ 328,600,000 $ 30,931,000 N/A

Average Steel $ 36,511,111 $ 3,436,778 9.35 %


Combined Total – Other Industry $ 237,631,051 $ 29,561,666 N/A

Average - Other Industry $ 8,801,150 $ 1,094,877 13.98 %


Energy Pro's “Energy Optimization Program”
guarantees, with our capital, substantial savings

...an infinite IRR to our Heavy Industrial Partner 
when signing on.
We seek to form an alliance with 
Heavy Industrial Partner:

• Review of Energy Pro’s standard contract and selection 
of a qualified pilot project to prove our merit

• Designate Relationship Managers for 
Heavy Industrial Partner and Energy Pro–USA

• Formation of a Steering Committee

• Set Timelines and Schedules