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

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.

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

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…

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.

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)

Solutions Awareness Plans- 2.97% Quick Wins- 5.64% $28,362 Quick Wins- 5.64% $53,860 Capital Expenditures- 30.70% $293,173 Unadjusted Total Savings- 39.31% $375,395 Quick wins are defined as any solution requiring less than a $2,000 expenditure

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

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.

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

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

Questions?

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%

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.