For site directors, VP Operations, and utilities leaders
At many large industrial sites, the real cost problem is not the average load. It is a handful of peak windows, restart events, or ratchet-setting intervals that quietly set capacity charges, billing demand, or other peak-sensitive costs. Elefore tells you whether those hours are worth money, attention, and action.
The Problem
One restart. One hot afternoon. One ratchet-setting interval. One badly timed peak window. Those moments can shape capacity charges, billing demand, or ratchet costs for months, but they usually sit between teams instead of inside one shared decision.
The site does not need equal attention across the whole year. A small number of intervals often carry the real exposure.
Operations knows what is about to happen. Utilities knows what the charge means. Too often, nobody owns the combined decision.
Teams manage by instinct, email, and informal workarounds. Sometimes that is smart. Sometimes it leaves a quiet uncertainty tax in place.
How The Problem Usually Looks
The point is not to manage every hour. It is to spot the windows where operating context collides with capacity charges, billing demand, or another billed mechanism.
The goal is to identify the few intervals that deserve a decision before the charge lands.
The plant can often see the cause of a bad interval before the bill can.
The tariff or market structure is clear, but the next operating move often is not.
That answer can be yes, no, or not yet. The value is in making the decision cleanly.
The Solution
Elefore starts narrower: identify the billed mechanism, test whether a real operating lever exists, and return a conservative answer a sponsor can actually use.
What You Get
The first engagement answers one question cleanly: is this worth acting on at this site, under this mechanism, with these operating realities?
Which market rule, tariff mechanic, or billing structure actually deserves management attention.
Whether the site has a real, safe action that can change the outcome without hurting throughput.
Move forward, monitor, expand, or stop. A clean no is a valid result when it saves wasted motion.
If the answer is no, that is still useful. You avoided funding the wrong problem.
How It Works
We determine whether the site's economics are actually being shaped by a narrow bill mechanism or market rule. If not, we say so early.
We review interval data, bills, and operating context to test whether a safe lever exists and what a conservative savings range looks like.
You get a sponsor-ready memo: act, monitor, expand, or walk away. If the case is real, ongoing support comes after the proof.
Tell us the facility, market, and why you think a handful of hours may be setting the bill. If it sounds weak, we will say so. If it sounds real, we will scope the right next step.
Best fit today: sites where a small number of intervals can materially shape capacity charges, billing demand, or ratchet exposure.
The first engagement is a fixed-fee audit. If the mechanism is real, software or ongoing support can come later. The first job is to prove the decision is worth making.
No. We start with bills, interval data, and operating context. Controls work matters later only if the economics justify it.
That is fine. The question is not whether your team is smart. It is whether a sponsor-ready decision still needs to be made around one site and one mechanism.
Then the audit did its job. A clean no is better than spending months building around the wrong problem.
No. PJM is the current primary wedge because the economics around capacity-tag exposure are clean. We also review selective regulated and other mechanism-led cases when the bill driver is clear.
Not by default. Elefore stays in the decision layer first. If implementation is warranted, that can happen later, often with partners.
Elefore was founded by Michael Ochs, a former Microsoft and Siemens industrial AI engineer focused on mechanism-specific electricity cost reduction for industrial sites.