Note: This is continuing story and this part (the original) is not available on the web.

See follow-ups at:

Surge Suppressor Manufacturer offers papers to back up claim

Disputes center on savings guarantee

By DEON ROBERTS 
Daily Star Staff Writer 

In the middle of a stormy May night in 2001, Jim Westmoreland's flower shop in Shreveport was hit by a lighting surge. Inside were a computer terminal, a telephone system, flower coolers and other sensitive equipment that could potentially be damaged by a spike in electricity. Westmoreland returned to work to find that the lightning had fried the computer terminal, telephone system, a flower cooler and a compressor — $3,000 of equipment destroyed. 

Not wanting to be a victim of a power surge again, he decided to protect his business and expensive electronics with a surge suppressor, after attending a presentation about the devices at an August 2001 business club meeting. An official from Ener/Tech, a Hammond-based company that manufactures Redi/Volt brand surge suppressors, was discussing the product at the business meeting and convinced Westmoreland of the value of the devices, he said. But what really sold him on the devices was Ener/Tech's promise of a 20 percent reduction in his energy bills. Protect his equipment and save money at the same time? "Why not?" Westmoreland thought. 

So, he bought a Redi/Volt II System IV suppressor for $1,850 and had it installed on a circuit breaker panel at his business, Flowers For You, he said. Ener/Tech gave him a written guarantee that said he would save the 20 percent over the course of two years following the installation. "I assumed it would start immediately," he said of the savings. "They guaranteed me in writing." 

In the lease sales agreement, Ener/Tech projected that Westmoreland's business would save a monthly average of $84.37 in electricity bills. Also in the agreement, the business was projected to save an average of $1,012.48 a year, $5,062.39 in five years, $10,124.78 in 10 years and $15,187.17 in 15 years. Ener/Tech allegedly told Westmoreland the unit would eventually pay for itself. But, a Sept. 2001 letter from Ener/Tech states, "in some cases it has taken three to four months before significant savings occur." 

Westmoreland watched as his energy usage decreased at the flower shop two months in a row, beginning the month after the suppressor was in stalled. Kilowatt-hours, a measurement of electrical energy consumed over an hour, fell from 7568 in September to 6308 in October and 5569 in November, according to his records. His monthly bills dropped from $479.22 in September to $343.86 in November, a difference of $135.36 or 28 percent. But his energy bills did not always reflect a decrease in kwhs. 

From April to August 2002, kwhs steadily increased from 5197 to 9583 during the four-month period. And compared to the same period the previous year, Westmoreland's kwh readings were generally higher after installing the surge suppressor, according to his records. He admitted his total annual energy expenses had dropped after buying the suppressor. A year after purchasing the device, he spent $415.61 less on energy than the year before. But, Westmoreland believes that lower fuel charges were responsible for the savings, not the suppressor. 

"The kilo-watt hours were up" slightly, he said, referring to the 4,011 more kwhs used the year after the Redi/Volt was connected. "So, that tells me it was using the same amount of electricity, if not a little more." "So, how are they saving anything?" he asked. 

The guarantee 

Westmoreland's experience is apparently not shared by all of Ener/Tech's customers, according to the company's Web site, www.redivoltmfg.com. Testimonials posted on the site praise the Redi/Volts for the energy savings they have allegedly produced. One client, Mother Lode Industries, reported a 32 percent reduction in energy usage over a five-month period. Another customer, Albany Dental Care, claimed 22 percent savings three months after installing the product. 

Ener/Tech Senior Vice President Roy Hutchinson said the 20 percent guarantee for businesses and 10 percent for homes stems from those testimonials and others. "And the reason that we guarantee 10 percent on a home and 20 percent on a business is because it's typically less surge activity in a ho me than there is in a business," Hutchinson said one January afternoon at Ener/Tech's corporate offices in Hammond, 1250 S.W. Railroad Ave. 

"Our guarantee is based on the historics with our customers, our history, not on scientific fact," he said. "The theory of the system is all very sound and working, and the history backs up the theory." Hutchinson would not disclose how many customers Ener/Tech has had, but said the number of complaints about the savings claim is dwarfed by the numbers that support it. 

Not everyone agrees with Ener/Tech's theory or its claim that surge suppressors reduce energy bills. An April warning from the Federal Trade Commission states, "Although these products can protect equipment from power surges, in the past the Commission and the states have challenged claims that these products provide significant savings for consumers' energy bills." "This is an over blanketed statement," Hutchinson said. "This is typical surge suppression under typical installations. The problem with tests and the problem with reports is sometimes they're completely inefficiently done." 

Officials with other surge suppression companies throughout the nation and even in other countries said they don't make claims of energy savings because those claims are erroneous. Steady Volt, a Clearwater, Fla.-based distributor of E-Clips surge suppressors, "will not claim in any way that having a surge suppressor installed will save on your electric bill," according to an e-mail from Steady Volt General Manager James Bergeron, who said he has never heard of Ener/Tech. "There is not a reliable test as we know that will allow this to be proven," Bergeron stated. 

"This is bull," agreed a mechanical engineer in Canada. Iron Dimi, of Advance Surge Suppressor in Mississauga, Ontario, said surge suppressors are designed to protect computers from transient electrical surges. Period. "It's not related to any kind of money saving," Dimi said. Effective transient voltage surge suppressors produce savings that total no more than the value of the equipment they protect, he said. If a $1,600 computer is shielded from a electrical surge by a suppressor, then the suppressor saved the customer $1,600 and no more. 

General Electric Co. is another source that has released statements on the effectiveness of surge suppressors on power consumption. "A number of transient voltage suppression devices have been offered for sale as energy savers," according to a GE statement. "No convincing proof has been offered to support this claim, and injunctions against making such claims have been obtained in several states." 

Ener/Tech's defense 

Ener/Tech is owned by James Tricou, who did not directly respond to numerous requests for an interview but apparently referred the requests to Hutchinson, who agreed to discuss the issue of energy savings in the presence of the company's lawyer, Reggie McIntyre. Hutchinson responded to the naysayers by arguing that there is no scientific test to either prove or disprove Ener/Tech's energy savings claims. "The test criteria is still being laid down," he said. "So, there's absolutely no one that has anything conclusive on that matter. They haven't analyzed every single possibility in energy management. I guarantee you they haven't." McIntyre said the energy savings are a "byproduct of the surge suppressor, the way it operates. They're still developing a test to determine that or how it's done." 

Has Ener/Tech ever conducted its own studies on Redi/Volts? 

"There has been a few pieces done in the history" of the company, which is 16 years old, Hutchinson said. "I'd have to do some digging and checking ... (But) most of this information is gathered from the customers themselves." Hutchinson said he has been with Ener/Tech for 3 1/2 years, "and as far as knowing every little detail about the company's history, I don't." 

Ener/Tech differs from other surge supp ressor manufacturers, he said. "And we'll be the first ones to agree with anyone that typically you cannot save energy with surge suppression." Redi/Volts help customers achieve energy savings through a combination of factors and by differing from most other surge suppressors, Hutchinson said. One difference between Redi/Volts and some other brands of surge suppressors is the clamping level, or surge threshold at which the suppressor activates. Redi/Volts are designed to clamp, or intercept, surges traveling at speeds of 85 picoseconds or slower, at 130 volts or higher, Hutchinson said. Most suppressors have a reaction time of three to four nanoseconds, which is fast but not faster than the speed at which Redi/Volts can intercept surges. 

The more surges that can be stopped before they damage equipment, the better. Surges can inflict stress on an electronic device, causing it to become hotter and work "harder to do the job it's designed to do because it's spending part of that energy fighting itself," he said. So, by preventing the internal conflict with Redi/Volts, a motor runs cooler and "spends more of its energy doing its job it's designed to do," he said. "So, it's not working as hard. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out that that's going to result in reduction of energy consumption." 

Another recommendation of Ener/Tech's is to put a suppressor on every breaker panel and unprotected disconnect, Hutchinson said. An unprotected disconnect is one not fed by a designated breaker. By placing Redi/Volts in those locations, surges that occur within a facility can be "virtually eliminated," he said. About 90 to 95 percent of surge activity is generated by equipment within a business — surges can occur when a motor switches on or when someone hits a typewriter key. A very small amount of surges come from outside sources such as power from utility companies. "We have relatively clean power in this country," he said. If the suppressors are installed properly throughout a plant or fac ility and in all the necessary places, less electricity is lost, he said. "If a system is not losing electricity, then it's not using it. And you're also increasing the longevity of that equipment," he said. "In other words, it's cause of effect. You're saving the cause and effect of the surges." 

No scientific proof 

The U.S. Department of Energy, GE, the Electric Power Research Institute, independent researchers and others have reviewed the claims by surge suppressor manufacturers and distributors that have advertised 10 to 20 percent energy savings. Many say the companies that promise the savings do so very elegantly and convincingly through savvy and tailored sales pitches. In a statement to its distributors, Ener/Tech admits the products are "a very easy sale." "You need not have any sales experience because these products practically sell themselves," according to Ener/Tech's statement. But Ener/Tech and other companies in the past have offered no scientific proof, making certain individuals suspicious of their claims. 

In a report, GE has commented on the justifications those companies often use, justifications which sound similar to Ener/Tech's. "The premise seems to be that transient overvoltages would cause degradation of electrical equipment, leading to increased losses and thus to a waste of energy," the GE report states, then adds that the claim has no proof. The Electric Power Research Institute, a nonprofit organization that conducts research and offers programs and assistance to those in the energy industry, conducted a surge suppressor study published Dec. 1981. The EPRI study found that "properly conducted laboratory tests show that electric transients do not increase the energy consumption of typical electronic equipment, nor do transient voltage suppressors save energy for electrical equipment operating from typical electric supply systems." 

"That's a 20-year-old study," Hutchinson said. "I've seen that study . The test criteria are not laid down in that study, and I can guarantee you test criterias won't meet our units. "We have a piece of equipment that's designed specifically to test the criterias of our unit. And every single unit is tested twice before it leaves here." According to Ener/Tech's Web site, by allowing a motor to run cooler, Redi/Volts extend the life of electrical equipment. For every 10 degrees cooler a motor runs, the life of that equipment is doubled, which lowers maintenance and saves customers money. 

Mike Adams, a manufacturing representative for Surge Suppression Inc., said surge suppressors have no impact on the amount of energy being drawn by a piece of equipment, such as a computer. "That's a misnomer," he said. "The computer's going to use as much energy as it's going to use. Whether you have clean power or dirty power going to that computer, it's going to use what it's going to use. Everybody in the business knows that's a misnomer." "All a surge suppressor does," Adams said, "is intercept overvoltage from a transient surge before it reaches equipment and then dissipates that overvoltage as heat. The thing isn't even on unless there's a surge present," he said. 

An official with the U.S. Department of Energy has also refuted the energy saving claims of surge suppressor manufacturers. "We know of no device which can achieve this type of savings by suppression of voltage transients," stated Edward Pollock, Director of DOE's Department of Research and Standards. "Furthermore, with the exception of electronic equipment such as computers, there is no indication that surge suppressors will substantially extend the life of a light bulb or other electrical equipment found in the home or office." 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company said claims of energy savings "have no apparent validity." Hutchinson pointed to the words "no apparent." "It's telling you that they're not even conclusive on their own finding," he said. 

A strong critic of Ener/T ech and other surge suppressor manufacturers that claim energy savings is Karl Clark, a Florida engineer who has built surge suppressors and has worked in the industry in 1985. He also has two degrees in engineering and a master's in business administration. "I think anybody that is promising energy savings needs to be in Roswell with a tin foil beanie on their head," he said. 

Clark tested Redi/Volts and issued a report to Surge Suppression Inc. in December 2001. His argument is that there is no scientific basis for Ener/Tech to attribute energy savings to its products. 

Too many variables 

The city of Hammond installed Redi/Volts at its two water and sewer treatment plants and at City Hall at the end of 2000. Clark studied the City Hall data for the three months following the installation of the units. He found no indication that energy usage was being impacted by the Redi/Volts. 

After being installed December 2000 at City Hall, kwhs did not change in January, dropped by 720 in February, then rose by 2,960 in March. Clark said the kwh fluctuations were too random and that there was no evidence that the energy saved in February was the result of the suppressors. From January 2001 to November 2002, energy consumption decreased by 5.1 percent at City Hall. At the city's north water and sewer treatment plant, energy usage increased 14 percent from 2001 to 2002. Energy usage also increased more than 4.3 percent from January 2001 to December 2002 at the north treatment plant. The city said it had tested the products for six-months before purchasing 92 at $1,466 each, according to a June 26 story in The Daily Star. In January 2002, the state Attorney General investigated complaints that the city had violated public bid laws when it purchased the suppressors from Ener/Tech, whose president is a cousin of Hammond Finance Director Randy Tricou. Tricou was not found to be part of the violation. Rather, the AG's office said the city did n ot publicly bid before buying the almost $130,000 worth of suppressors. After finding a violation, the AG's office advised the city to rebid in August. Ener/Tech was the only company that responded, according to a press release from former Mayor Louis Tallo's administration. Tallo told The Daily Star in June that the city had saved roughly $145,000 in electricity and maintenance expenses due to the Redi/Volts.

But critics of Redi/Volts say there are too many variables that can affect energy bills and that it's impossible to attribute any savings — whether it's $1 or $100,000 — to the suppressors. Weather and other atmospheric changes; a facility's hours of operation, changes in insulation and equipment and space alterations; air leaks; and countless other factors have an impact on energy consumption. And the combination of those factors is never consistent from year to year, critics say. "You can't look at your monthly bills and make a lot of conclusions, because there are all kinds of factors. There's a tremendous amount of variables involved," a registered professional engineer in Ruston said. 

Mickey Cox, who has a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, said he performed tests on two Redi/Volts in a laboratory last year. Using a meter under controlled conditions, his "modest study" found no reduction in energy usage when Redi/Volts were applied. "I was quite happy with the precision I received," he said. But, "Redi/Volt representatives will look at my report and say that doesn't prove anything." Cox said he sent a complaint to the AG's office in October, but in January still hadn't heard a response. Pam Laborde, of the AG's office, said Jan. 21 that she couldn't find the complaint and that it may have been passed to another agency. Clark, Cox and others are concerned that all the variables and factors would make it complicated, if not entirely impossible, for a customer to ever make a claim with Ener/Tech and prove to the company no energy was saved. 

Making a c laim 

In Ener/Tech's letter to Westmoreland, sent after he purchased his Redi/Volt, the company told him that it might take some time before he sees energy savings, but they would come eventually. "Don't despair. Over the last ten years, we have had only two energy savings guarantee claims," the letter states. 

Ener/Tech guarantees an average of 20 percent energy savings to commercial customers over a period of 24 months. If the customer "does not receive the quoted savings within a two-year period, he will be written a check for the difference of what he was guaranteed and what he actually saved." The savings are insured by a third party. But if the customer does not see the 20 percent savings, Ener/Tech will not refund more than what the customer paid for the suppressors, according to their Web site. 

Westmoreland's lease sales agreement lists how much he should save over the course of 15 years but does not mention exactly how much he should save after 24 months. By multiplying by two the $1,012 he was guaranteed to save after one year, he should save about $2,024 during his two-year guarantee period, which will end in September. Critics have said the amount and type of information needed to file a claim is extensive and could turn customers away. Besides "accurate records and documentation" — a phrase that could mean just about anything, critics say — the customer must also provide local daily temperature readings from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for the guarantee period and for the two previous years, utility bills, service invoices, records of equipment and space alterations and other information. 

Ener/Tech does not have many problems when it comes to claims, Hutchinson said. "And it's a reasonable claim process," he said. "It's the same one that everyone uses that has any kind of reputation. All you have to do is just a little bit of homework when you do it." 

Does Ener/Tech's sales people take photogra phs of a customer's facility before the suppressors are installed and keep that picture on file in case a claim might be made down the road? "No," he said. "And to be honest with you, you've got to understand that you have to have some type of reasonable trust in your salespeople, because no company could operate with any kind of efficiency if they didn't." Salesmen are trained "to the best of our ability," Hutchinson said. They are taught to take surveys and understand how to assess facilities and determine how many units a customer needs. The suppressors are installed by independent licensed electricians, but sales people need no engineering background, he said. "In fact, I think from what I told you today, I would be willing to bet you could walk in this facility and survey this facility accurately," he said. 

When a customer makes a claim, Ener/Tech inputs their records and data in a computer program to determine how the space alterations or new equipment purchases might have affected energy consumption. The software, Phaser 2000, is owned by by a company called Omni but was developed by Enron, he said. Clark said in order for Phaser 2 to be of use, the software would have to analyze "second by second" data from the two-year period, information that would be impossible to gather. "That shifts the liability to the customers," he said. "The so-called computer program has no more credibility than any of the other stuff." Hutchinson said Phaser 2000 is one of the most recognized utility tracking software packages in the nation. 

Few and far between 

Most energy professionals were surprised to find Ener/Tech making claims of energy savings. "It's amazing to me that this is happening," Cox said. "I didn't think anybody was still doing it," Adams said. Clark said the surge suppression industry as a whole began dropping the energy saving claims around the late 1970s and early 1980s, when studies trying to disprove the theory began to pop up. "If t hese people are operating in your neck of the woods, it tells you there's problem with law enforcement," Clark said. 

Action has been taken in the past against companies making similar claims. In 1993, the FTC charged Solar Sales Inc., a Fort Lauderdale, Fla., company, with falsely claiming that its surge suppressors saved customers 20 percent on their energy bills. A consent judgment prohibited the company from making those claims in the future unless Solar Sales can provide "competent and reliable evidence to substantiate them." Florida was once a hot bed for companies who made a fortune off of elderly, and often naive, customers who were wooed by the promises of savings, Clark said. If a salesman is good enough and his pitch polished enough, he could milk many unsuspecting customers. Even some professionals in engineering firms would have a hard time resisting the appealing claims. "It has all the earmarks of a pyramid sales scheme," Clark said, then added that the number of companies still making the claims are few and far between. "I take a real dim view of people misrepresenting products." 

The Better Business Bureau, which Ener/Tech has been a member of since October 1995, says the company has a satisfactory record. "This means it supports the Bureau's services to the public and meets our membership standards," according to the BBB's Web site. Ener/Tech is getting few complaints and the majority of the Redi/Volt customers are happy," Hutchinson said. "It's time tested. It's a proven. And we have proven results," he said. "We have a history. We have large sales. We have repeated sales from customers. "If you're seeing multiple transactions from the same customer, then that guarantees you this system's working. And to me, that's a pretty conclusive statement all on its own."

Stedi-Power, Inc
5044 B U Bowman Drive #102
Buford, Georgia 30518
PHONE: (678) 546-6780

Last Updated: 07 Jun 2004
©1997-2004 Stedi-Power, Inc.
All trademarks are the property of their respective owners
All other rights reserved.