This is a photographic template – your

photograph should fit precisely within this rectangle.

Power Quality and Energy Saving Solutions

– What is Real?

Presented by:
Dan Carnovale, P.E.
danieljcarnovale@eaton.com

© 2008 Eaton Corporation. All rights reserved.

 New Trend in Selling PQ Solutions
• Selling PQ for the sake of PQ isn’t good enough anymore
• Power Quality (PQ) and Energy Management (EM) linked by
conservation activities (VFDs, fluorescent lights, etc.)
• Insurance (PQ) versus “real” (EM) savings
• Energy costs are rising
• Required payback periods are decreasing (<2 yrs)
• Significant confusion in sales methods and product literature
• Black-box “all-in-one” solutions are more common

2
2
Overview
• Need – Everyone wants to save energy!
• People want to believe that there is a simple
solution
• Electric bills can be confusing
• Misleading sales methods by unknowing
salespeople
• What claims are real?
• What claims are false?
• What should YOU do?

3
3
Understanding Your Utility Bill
Energy
(kWh)

Demand
(kW)

PF Charges

+ Taxes

4
4
 Is the Glass Half Empty or Half Full?

Wasted
Capacity
Full
Capacity

5
5
EPRI Said It Best….

You can only save energy

that is wasted!!!

6
6
PQ Solutions that “Claim” to Save Energy

Category 1: PF correction equipment

• Black/green boxes with capacitors in them
• PF correction capacitors
• Harmonic filters
Category 2: Other PQ Solutions
• Negative sequence current reduction
• Neutral blocking filter
• Surge protection
• Soft starters
• Zig-zag reactors
• Harmonic mitigating transformers (HMT)
• Conservation voltage reduction (CVR) equipment
• Green plug

7
7
Energy Savers

A thought….don’t you think the government

would require these devices if they worked as
well as claimed????

Our units are garaunteed to save you money!

(Maybe a “garauntee” is totally different from a
“guarantee”….)

8
8
It Happens to the Best of Us….

• 2007 – Eaton Fluid Power Plant

• Applied Three (3) Energy Savers ($65k)
• Claimed 11-30%
• Actual Savings (Year/Year) – 15%?
• What????? (Plant lighting was changed to energy
efficient lighting three months prior to application of
Energy Saver!)
• Actual Savings <1%!

9
9
It Happens to the Best of Us….
kW savings over Cost savings over
kWh kW Excess rKVA Cost previous year previous year
N-07 346,811 664.3 198.5 $28,856.55 4.3% 4.1%
Oct-07 329,366 628.5 150.1 $27,351.46 3.9% 3.2%
S-07 297,597 571 106.5 $24,879.59 13.1% 11.5%
Aug-07 312,736 605.02 22.8 $26,120.39 15.9% 15.4%
J-07 331,227 637.56 64.1 $27,100.99 10.5% 10.4%
Jun-07 308,103 616.8 467.4 $26,607.99 12.2% 9.2%
M-07 319,200 630 529.7 $26,920.13 6.3% 5.6%
Apr-07 369,870 643 439.5 $28,231.73 16.6% 9.5%
M-07 354,678 664 510.1 $28,663.34 -4.5% -4.5%
Feb-07 400,302 704.4 506.2 $30,757.42 16.2% 11.7%
J-07 395,049 708.7 533.6 $30,808.96 -18.0% -21.5%
Dec-06 357,737 718.6 564.6 $30,444.10
N-06 384,850 693.9 546.7 $30,099.75
Oct-06 354,128 653.9 455.7 $28,255.68
S-06 339,933 656.9 560 $28,109.33
Aug-06 382,376 719.2 579.4 $30,869.79
J-06 361,292 712.5 558.4 $30,259.63
Jun-06 345,645 702.44 508.4 $29,315.43
M-06 352,918 672 493.8 $28,505.66
Apr-06 337,043 771.2 534.1 $31,194.23
M-06 347,956 635.3 468.1 $27,432.08
Feb-06 387,728 840.9 527.1 $34,813.36
J-06 289,015 600.7 458.5 $25,364.67

10
10
Year-over-year Data Should NOT be Used

• Year-over-year data can be very misleading

• Usually, only the good months are highlighted
• Residential data is especially difficult to track
from year to year

11
11
PQ Solutions that “Save” Energy

“Black Box” All-in-One Solutions

• Description: Magic boxes full of PF
correction, harmonic correction, surge
protection, etc.
• Claim: Up to 35%
• Reality: < 3% typical

12
12
But they showed me how it works…

Demo Cases – What’s in that box?

• Motor
• Capacitor
• Meter
• (….maybe a few tricks)

“Look…current reduced from 10 to 5 Amps, that

results in 50% energy savings!”

13
13
But they showed me how it works…

Electro-magnetic disk meter spins slower with

the black box on. It takes 5 hours to make one
rotation with the unit on vs. 4 hours with the
unit off. Why?

14
14
But they showed me how it works…

They showed me a set of bills from a facility in

Alaska and they saved money when the units
were on. Why?

15
15
Typical Claims
• Correct PF
• Provide Surge Protection
• Save Energy
• Commercial, Institutional and Residential
Targets

The Reality: Capacitors with MOV’s

(i.e. PF correction with surge protection)

16
16
Authors’ Viewpoint
• We have done the calculations
• We have done the measurements
• We have talked to the vendors
• We simply do not believe the excessive claims
• Can you save significant money with PF
correction? Yes, IF there is a penalty

17
17
PQ Solutions that “Save” Energy

Harmonic Filters and PF Correction

• Description: Harmonic filters or PF
correction equipment
• Claim: Reduce kW and eddy current
losses
• Reality: Reduces I2R depending on
location – typical is less than 2%

18
18
PF Correction and Energy Savings

• Well known benefit: kW Loss Reduction (real savings)

• Problem: Overstated
• Claim: 11-30% savings
• Reality: 1-4% overall savings typical
• 500 “pieces of technology” installed…
• Open the “black box” – it’s full of capacitors… If it
looks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks
like a duck….

19
19
PF Correction and Energy Savings

• Claim: Reduces harmonics

• Reality: Will ALWAYS increase harmonics by
series or parallel resonance unless installed as
a filter
• Is this a problem? Maybe, maybe not….
• The caps can usually take it (for a while)
• The system can take some additional current or
voltage THD but should be watched

20
20
Capacitor Placement – Physical Location
Utility Penalty – If needed for PF penalty
• Typical savings is 5-30% of bill

Capacity Improvement – if needed to improve the capacity

of a transformer or cable
• 1-2% of overall kW savings is typical

Loss Reduction – If needed for kVA or loss reduction

• 1-4% of overall kW is typical with distributed capacitor
(some may claim more)

21
21
Power Factor Penalties
• Not possible to cover all penalties
• Table 3 (Blooming/Carnovale paper) shows some
typical methods
• User should determine which type of penalty
(if any) the utility is using
• Then investigate further
• Sometimes utility uses multiple penalty methods

22
22
 Power Factor Penalties
Table I (partial) from “Capacitor Application Issues” paper
http://www.eaton.com/EatonCom/Markets/Electrical/ServicesSupport/Experience/index.htm

POWER FACTOR PENALTIES

RATE TYPE DESCRIPTION OF PF PENALTY EXAMPLE

kVA (demand) Penalty for < 1.0 pf; generally Demand = 800 kW; pf=80%; kVA=1000; demand charge = $10/kVA
rates applied as a $/kVA pf penalty = (1000 – 800)*$10 = $2000/month
PF (kVA) When the pf is less than X%, the When the pf is less than 90%, the demand may be taken as 90% of the measure
adjustment demand may be taken as X% of pf=80%; kVA=1000; demand charge = $10/kVA
the measured kVA Billed demand = 0.90*1000 = 900 kW
pf penalty = (900 – 1000*0.80)*$10 = $1000/month
PF ratio (kW If the pf is < X%, the demand will If the pf is < 85%, the demand will be adjusted by the following: 85%/actual p
demand) be adjusted by the following: demand = adjusted demand.
adjustment X%/actual pf * actual demand = Demand = 800 kW; pf=80%;
adjusted demand. demand charge = $10/kW
Adjusted demand = (0.85/0.80)*800=850kW
pf penalty = (850-800)*$10 = $500/month
PF magnitude PF adjustment increases or Where the pf is < 85%, the net demand charges shall be increased 1% for each
(kW demand) decreases the net (kW) demand pf is < 90%; likewise, where the pf is higher than 95%, the demand charges wi
dj h X% f h Y% h f i b 1% f h h l 1% h f i b 90%

23
23
 PF Correction – Loss Reduction
Resistive
R1 Load
R2
Motor
Load

Place here for line loss

reduction and voltage
improvement
Place here for utility PF penalty

Place here for utility PF penalty

(utility owned transformer)
or
Place here to reduce losses in
transformer or free capacity
24
24
PF Correction – Loss Reduction

Motor
R1 R2 Load

Resistive
I2 Load
I1

PLOSSES = I12 R1 + I22 R2 + (Transf Losses) + (Load Losses)

Delivery Losses

25
25
Savings Depends on Location
Motor
R1 R2 Load

Resistive
I2 Load
I1

This current is reduced This one is not

Many times, the “black box”
vendors will say, “see, we don’t
reduce the current to your
motor/loads.”

Frequently convenient to locate capacitors at the main bus, but this

reduces only part of the current and not the current that is likely to
yield the greatest loss savings

26
26
Savings Depends on Location
Motor
R1 R2 Load

Resistive
I2 Load
I1

Both currents are reduced

Still, motor current is the same.

Placing the capacitor as close to the load as possible will generally

yield the greatest power delivery loss savings but the application, in
general, is more costly for multiple capacitors at the load(s).

27
27
 Example – PF Correction Savings

12.47/0.48
%R=1
12.47 kV 2 mi, 336 MCM 300 ft, 1000 500 kW
Overhead MCM Cable PF=.88

500 kW
PF=1
1076 kW

4.73 kW 5.1 kW 71.2 kW

LOSSES:
0.44% 0.47% 6.65%

Total Circuit Losses: 81 kW / 8.1%

Source:
28 EPRI 28
 Example, Capacitor at Main Incoming

12.47/0.48
%R=1
12.47 kV 2 mi, 336 MCM 300 ft, 1000 500 kW
Overhead MCM Cable PF=.88

250 kvar 500 kW

PF=1
1070 kW

4.03 kW 4.33 kW 66.4 kW

LOSSES: Saved a little here
0.38% 0.40% 6.23%
because voltage
Total Circuit Losses: 74.8 kW / 7.48% improved

End User Loss Savings: 76 kW - 70 kW = 6 kW

This is 8% savings in losses, but net power into
load decreases only 6 kW or 0.6% of load

Source:
29 EPRI 29
 Example, Capacitor at Load

12.47/0.48
(250 kvar)
%R=1
12.47 kV 2 mi, 336 MCM 300 ft, 1000 500 kW
Overhead MCM Cable PF=.88

500 kW
PF=1
1065 kW

4.03 kW 4.32 kW 60.6 kW

LOSSES:
0.38% 0.40% 6.23%
Total Circuit Losses: 68.9 kW / 6.89%

End User Loss Savings: 76 kW - 65 kW = 11 kW

This is nearly 15% savings in losses, but net power
into load decreases only 11 kW or 1.1% of load

Source:
30 EPRI 30
 Computer Simulation – High Rise Building
PF kW kvar kvar added % kW Savings
0.58 615 870 0 0.0%
0.62 612.8 771 100 0.4%
0.67 610.9 671 200 0.7%
0.73 609.2 568.8 300 0.9%
0.79 607.7 466 400 1.2%
0.86 606.6 361 500 1.4%
0.92 605.7 255 600 1.5%
0.97 605.1 147 700 1.6%
1.00 604.8 38 800 1.7%
0.99 604.9 -72 900 1.6%
0.96 605.3 -184 1000 1.6%

% Loss Improvement
1.8%
1.6%
1.4%
1.2%
1.0%
0.8%
0.6%
0.4%
0.2%
0.0%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
31
Losses vs. kvar Added 31
Computer Simulation – High Rise Building
Utility
615.0 kW
870.3 kVAR
1000 kVA @ 0.6 PF
0.19 % VD
Utility Bus LF Voltage 12446.51 V
LF Voltage(%) 99.81 %
Utility Feeder
615.0 kW
870.3 kVAR
LF kW Loss 0.00 kW
0.19 % VD
Transf Pri LF Voltage 12446.47 V
LF Voltage(%) 99.81 %
615.0 kW
870.3 kVAR 1000 kVA
LF kW Loss 11.40 kW

Secondary Bus
5.71 % VD
LF Voltage 452.61 V
LF Voltage(%) 94.29 %
603.6 kW
805.8 kVAR 480 V Cable
LF kW Loss 3.64 kW

Load Bus
6.34 % VD
LF Voltage 449.56 V
LF Voltage(%) 93.66 %

1000 kVA Load Capacitor

1000.00 kVA LF kVAR 0.00 kVAR
LF kW 600.00 kW Capacitor kVAR 0.0
LF kVAR 800.00 kVAR
LF PF 0.60

32
32
 Field Tests
600 1.000
0.900
550
0.800
500 0.700
Trend Data During Test
kW, Current

0.600 kW
450

PF
0.500 Current
400 PF
0.400

350 0.300
0.200
300
0.100
250 0.000
1 600 1.000

550 0.900
0.800
500
0.700
450
kW, Current

0.600 kW

PF
400 0.500 Current
Trend Data Zoom 0.400 PF
350
0.300
300
0.200
250 0.100
200 33 0.000
33
1
 Field Tests

12 1.000
0.900
10
0.800
Harmonic Distortion (%)

0.700
8
0.600 VTHD

PF
6 0.500 ITHD
PF
Harmonic Trend Data During Test
0.400
4
0.300
0.200
2
0.100
0 0.000
1

34
34
 Field Tests
250 1 kW
kvar
0.9
kVA
200 0.8
PF
0.7
kW, kvar, kVA

150 0.6

PF
0.5 Load with Cycling Air Compressor
100 0.4

0.3

50 0.2

0.1

0 0

1 1001 1
kW
160
0.9 PF

140 0.8

0.7
120
kW

PF
0.6
100
Zoom of Load with Cycling Air Compressor
0.5

80
0.4

60 0.3
35
1 35
Confusion Created by Sales
Hard Savings Soft Savings
Reduced kWh Lengthens equipment life
Reduced kW Protects sensitive electronic
equipment
Improved PF Reduces maintenance

Reduction in equipment losses Protects environment

(cables, transformers, motors, etc.)
Reduced taxes Less HVAC required

Space savings

Improves safety

Reduces greenhouse gases

36
36
Confusion Created by Sales
• Expert/Third party testimonials and/or “Technical sign-off”
(usually engineer signs off then the sales person goes to the
controller or finance person with the paper)
• Unknowing/Non-technical or passionate salesmen (he
believes and so should you!)
• Patented technology
• Only the inventor truly understands the “technology”
• Hard to prove/disprove guarantees (buy our stuff and then
show us you didn’t save…)
• Sell to unknowing residential and commercial customers with
little or no knowledge of kW vs. kVA (current is reduced so
“power is reduced”)
37
37
Confusion Created by Sales
Confusing Percentages
• Transformer 97% Efficient
• New Transformer 97.8% Efficient
• Either 0.8% Improvement or 27% Reduction in Losses

Faulty/Questionable M&V
• Inferences/overgeneralizations from “similar” measurements
• Comparison to customer with PF penalty
• Revenue grade metering
• CT inaccuracies/phase shifts
• Lack of practical demonstration method
• Too long/short measurement length
38
38
Interesting Quotes
What genuinely makes this product different and thus sets it apart from most other
devices on the market is built in line noise filtering, “LNF”. This LNF circuit helps to
balance out the distortion in the wave cycle which causes KVAR’s in the harmonic
balance associate with inductive loads.
(Interpretation: Can you say “flux capacitor”?)
Achieved savings derived from using both MOV, TVSS and line filter capacitance
together in one unit maximizes the energy savings feature in real time operations,
with results showing anywhere from 5% - 20% or more in monthly electrical
savings possible.
(Interpretation: I can almost guarantee it might work….)
Highly sophisticated band-pass filter….blocks out harmonics, power spikes and
surges….clean up your power…increase your power factor, reduces KVAR, amp
draw and most importantly kWH usage…remember, you are billed for
kWH….reducing your kWH reduces your electric bills.
(Interpretation: Does everything but wash your car)

39
39
Interesting Quotes
Utility companies hate our product because it takes money out of their pockets.
They don’t like when customers save money on their bills.
(Actually: yes, they do and they would love to pay you to save them from building
new gen plants)

How do you get 30% savings on a typical power system – well, if you save 2% on
every motor and you have 15 motors, there you go….
(Must be that “new math” – I guess I really don’t understand per unit math after
all….)

The inventor will call you to talk to you about the product
(I’m still waiting by the phone….)

40
40
Interesting Quotes
“Power Factor” improvement is recognized by the US Department of Energy and all
Electric Power Companies as a method to reduce kWH on your electric bill.
(Actually: yes, PF correction is recognized but not, generally speaking to reduce
kWH)

Our product is certified by ANSI/UL STD 810 FOLDER which means it is a POWER
FACTOR improver.

(Regarding surge protection) – Every time you type on your keyboard, you create
micro-transients. These transients travel through the power system and waste
energy. Installing our surge protection will clean up your system and save you
XXX% on your energy bill.

41
41
Interesting Quotes
You have to install our product – it works over time. You can’t just turn it on and
off and expect it to show a difference.

These capacitors are “different” – they aren’t just regular capacitors…. (opened the
box and what do you know….)

Q: How does 18 AWG wire in a demo box translate up to 500 MCM in a plant?
A: It just does….

42
42
Interesting Reference Quotes
Our KWH was reduced by approximately 15-18%....Amperage was reduced by 22%
and the KWH was reduced by about the same….I’m not an electrician, so cannot
explain exactly how they work, but testing has shown us they do.

This also gave (us) the opportunity to participate in something that is positive for
the environment and good for the country we live in.

43
43
My Favorite HELP Line Calls
“I just started working for a company that makes
energy saving devices…sometimes our product
saves energy and sometimes it doesn’t – can you
help me explain to our customers why that is the
case????”

I want to sell some black box energy savings

devices and I want to be conscientious about what
I’m selling. I’ve set up a W-H meter and did some
testing. Why would my meter spin slower with the
unit on if it doesn’t save real kW?
(Finally, a valid question!)
44
44
My Favorite Personal Slams (on me)
You are thinking too much like an engineer – you will probably
never understand this product.
OK smart guy, how many classes did you talk about PF
correction in college – 2, maybe 3 and does that make you an
expert on this stuff?
Eaton doesn’t like us because we have a patent on the
“technology” and you can’t sell it.

….what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger!

45
45
My Favorite Redemption Line

…salesman that sold the product but

came to understand the truth….
“I can’t believe we sold you this bucket
of $%#*^!

46
46
Other PQ Solutions that “Save” Energy
Products that Reduce Negative
Sequence Currents in Motors
• Description: Voltage unbalance or
negative sequence voltage harmonics
make motor resist 60 Hz rotation
• Claim: > 10% savings?
5th Harmonic
• Reality: MG-1 describes 60 Hz Rotation
Rotation

voltage/current unbalance but losses

are typically < 2%

47
47
Other PQ Solutions that “Save” Energy

(Balancing) Zig-Zag Reactors

• Description: Balance voltages, cancel
harmonics, improve PF
• Claim: > Up to 20% savings?
• Reality: I2R savings, possible harmonic
savings, possible PF savings, possible
voltage unbalance savings – total less
than 3% typically

48
48
Other PQ Solutions that “Save” Energy
Surge Suppressors
• Description: TVSS/SPD typical equipment
• Claim: Transients waste energy and surge
protection equipment removes transients
• Reality: Impossible and unbelievable! FTC
warning = 0.00000%

• From EPRI = typical load may yield 0.044 Wh/yr

from many severe transients/year
“….you can only save energy that is wasted…”

49
49
Other PQ Solutions that “Save” Energy

Harmonic Mitigating Transformers

• Description: Phase shifting transformers
• Claim: Up to 20%
• Reality: Actual savings is from energy
efficient transformer changes (2-4%) plus
< 4% from harmonic reduction is typical

50
50
Other PQ Solutions that “Save” Energy

Neutral Blocking Filter

• Description: 3rd harmonic blocking filter
• Claim: Up to 8%
• Reality: Possible to get up to 8% but
more typical is 1-4% depending on load
mix

51
51
Other PQ Solutions that “Save” Energy

Soft Starter
• Description: Power electronic motor starter
• Claim: Reduce kW demand
• Reality: 2-10 seconds of starting current will
not significantly reduce 15 min billing demand.
In addition, inrush current is primarily reactive
(kvar, not kW). Savings = 0%.

52
52
 Other PQ Solutions that “Save” Energy
Conservation Voltage Reduction (CVR)
• Description: Reduce voltage to loads by 5-10%
• Claim: Reduce kW demand, usage up to 13%
• Reality: Depends on load mix – constant
impedance loads will reduce kW but could
increase load cycles (heating loads, for example).
Constant HP (motor) loads could increase current
and increase I2R losses. Typical <2% for
aggregate systems could be more for specific
individual loads.
53
53
Voltage Reduction and Incandescent Light Bulbs

Source: Light Measurement Handbook; http://www.intl-light.com

You save energy but you get less light: why not change to a more efficient lighting
technology instead?
54
54
Other PQ Solutions that “Save” Energy
Energy Saver (green) Plug
• Description: “The Green Plug was invented by my thesis
adviser…it’s really a Modulated Switched Dynamic Filter Capacitor
Compensator (did he mean to say “flux capacitor?”), a device
designed to make existing power systems more powerful and energy
efficient by reducing the amount of reactive energy and harmonic
currents that are generated by electrical residential and commercial
loads”

• Claim: “…the actual savings available through the green plug are
difficult to measure…but he estimated that power producers could
expect to experience a drop of 10-20% in power if the green plug is
used extensively”

• Reality: No comment ☺

55
55
Table 2 – Summary Table

Description
Primary PQ Benefit
Stated EM Savings or Other Benefit(s)
Realistic EM Savings
Reasons for Discrepancies

Conclusion: Buyer Beware!!!

56
56
 Energy Management Cost Saving Solutions
Save money through rate structure
Management
Supply Side

optimization, penalty avoidance and utility INCOMING UTILITY SERVICE

bill accuracy verification

•Energy management audits and assessments M

•Power factor correction

•Meters
UTILITY MV MV
Manage the facility’s energy usage METER SWITCHGEAR POWER
Monitoring

FACTOR
Enterprise

through meters and software to identify

savings opportunities SERVER
POWER
MANAGEMENT
•Meters •Billing and trending applications SYSTEM

•Enterprise software •Data integration with BMS WEB

ACCESS

Reduce energy consumption and save

Demand Side
Management

GENERATOR
money by controlling loads
G
M M
•Peak shaving •Distributed generation
•Load control •Time-of-use programs
LV SUBSTATION WITH PEAK SHAVING
•Meters •Operational savings LOAD CONTROL LOAD CONTROL & ATS

ENERGY EFFICIENT
HARMONIC MITIGATING
TRANSFORMER
TRANSFORMERS
Energy Efficient

Conserve energy through installation of

energy-efficient devices
Devices

M M M M
•Drives •Power factor correction
•Transformers •Harmonic Solutions
•Lighting control LIGHTING
MCC WITH PF
& HARMONIC
HARMONIC
FILTER
DRIVES
CONTROL
PANELBOARD 57CORRECTION
M - Meters
57
 Potential Savings of Solutions
Table 2 (partial) from “Power Quality and Energy Management Solutions” paper
http://www.eaton.com/experience

ription Primary PQ Benefit Stated EM Savings and Other Benefits Realistic EM Savings Reason for

ucts to address Negative Sequence • Eliminates “reverse” rotation action on • kW and kWh savings (usually • Hard to m
tive sequence Current reduction motors yielding higher efficiency < 2 %) stated cla
ents • kW and kWh savings (usually > 10%) • Easier to
• Reduces heating “some” s
• Prevents premature damage
ucts to address Negative Sequence • Eliminates “reverse” rotation action on • kW and kWh savings (usually • Hard to m
lanced voltages Current reduction motors yielding higher efficiency < 2 %) stated cla
uding zig-zag • kW and kWh savings (usually > 10%) • Easier to
ors) • Reduces heating “some” s
• Prevents premature damage
e protection Elimination of voltage • kW and kWh savings (usually > 20%) • 0.000 % • Uneduca
transients • Prevents damage
• Reduces need for maintenance
• Improves performance of equipment

orrection Reduce kvar flows on • kW and kWh savings (usually > 20%) • 0.5-2% typical (excluding • Easy to s
power system • Prevents damage harmonics) based on
• Reduces need for maintenance • If electric utility charges PF may purp
• Improves performance of equipment penalty, PF charges may and kvar
actually save up to 10% or so • NOTE:
(not kW or kWh savings) as kW or
though a
58
58
Summary

Is it a good idea to buy PQ solutions?

• Yes – for PQ and reliability reasons
Do PQ solutions save energy?
• Sometimes but not as much as many will
claim
Does PF Correction equipment save significant
money on the utility bill?
• Yes, if there is a penalty

59
59
Wrap-up and Questions
Reference Papers and Presentations:
1. Carnovale/Mueller, “Power Quality Solutions and Energy Savings” (PQ
Conference – 2005)
2. Blooming/Carnovale – “Capacitor Application Issues” (IEEE IAS – 2006)
3. EPRI – “Energy Savings: You Can Only Save Energy That Is Wasted”
4. EPRI – “Strategies for Evaluating Black Box Technologies”

Contact Information: DanielJCarnovale@eaton.com

Website: Power Systems Experience Center

http://www.eaton.com/experience

Questions?
60
60
61
61