Essentially,
LB Services, LLC provides extended professional resources for their clients
with these support services. The services include all facets of the power,
utility, and power project's scope, and can be thought of as "another set
of eyes" looking out SPECIFICALLY for the owner's interests. Too often
the projects primary consultants become preoccupied with "moving the project
to completion" especially as time runs short and remaining budgets run
thin. Typically the owner's staff becomes totally involved with working
out the daily bugs and details.
The bottom line is that it
is NOT UNUSUAL for a project to take on its own "life" with all the consultants,
vendors, and even owner's staff focused on completion instead of re-evaluation
and risk assessment at each stage of the development. Our support services
insure that developments during construction do not negatively impact the
anticipated value of the end product.
*******************************
Sample Situation
Sometimes an attractive option
is only as attractive as the alternatives available at the time of decision.
A 2,500 kW facility manager
decides to implement a $500,000 energy conservation investment in order
to reduce his average load by approximately 500 kW. Using his current utility
contract rates, with $0.064/ kWh and 60 % load factor, he anticipates the
project will meet their business objective of under a 3-year payback. However,
one year after implementation, a load aggregation proposal would allow
this same customer to obtain the incremental 500 kW for under $.045 /kWh
average such that the investment pay back will increase to exceed the 3
years acceptable investment term.
Making the situation worse
is that the customer finds that a load shedding scheme
(100 kw) with a 400 kW peak
shaving system (an option not previously allowed by his regulated utility)
costing $200,000 and another $50,000 per year to operate, would have given
him an effective reduction in the same amount of load while also improving
his load factor for which the aggregator would have given him an effective
reduction of another $0.005 on his total load in addition to the reduction
in peak load for a
net 1.4 year payback .
While this example may appear
slightly complex, the net result is that the facility spent twice as much
to save less money, not to mention that the facility would have gained
a 400 kW on site generation supply asset for emergency use. |