This is a composite case based on real patterns Enerlogix has handled in the Tlaxcala–Puebla industrial corridor. Some operational details have been modified to preserve confidentiality, but the numbers, the savings levers, and the lessons reflect real executions with chemical-sector plants.
The question that opened the project was the usual one: "we already optimized what we could—where else does the saving come from?". The answer —31% of annual electricity cost— did not come from a single heroic measure, but from attacking four levers at once with an orderly method. That is the point of the case: big savings are almost never in a single place.
The context
A chemical plant in Tlaxcala, dedicated to producing resins and specialties, runs on 4.2 MW of contracted demand in medium voltage, a continuous 24-hour process, and a load factor of 0.71. Annual electricity spend of approximately MX$28 million, the second-largest line item on the income statement after raw materials.
The company had already done the "obvious": LED lighting, a few variable frequency drives, a capacitor bank installed in 2019. Management believed the savings margin was exhausted. The CFE bill was reviewed, paid, and filed. In terms of energy management, they operated at a reactive level.
The diagnosis · Plan 360 Management
Plan 360 Management began with a four-week diagnosis based on real data: 24 months of billing, the hourly load curve, the current contract, and the state of the equipment. The diagnosis identified four sources of savings the plant was not capturing, in order of increasing effort:
| Lever | Finding | Estimated saving |
|---|---|---|
| Bill validation | Suboptimal tariff and a misapplied charge over 11 months | ~3% |
| Power factor and demand | Degraded capacitor bank; unmanaged demand spikes | ~6% |
| Migration to the MEM | Qualifies as a Qualified User and had not migrated | ~20% |
| Position management | Supply contract without an optimized firm/spot mix | ~2% |
The theoretical sum came to ~31%. The work was turning paper into pesos.
The execution
Quick wins: bill and power factor (months 1-3)
The first money came from CFE bill validation: the plant was on a suboptimal tariff for its profile and had been carrying a misapplied charge for 11 months, which was recoverable. In parallel, the degraded capacitor bank was rehabilitated and peak demand management began, eliminating the power factor penalty and flattening two spikes that inflated the fixed charge.
These low-cost quick wins captured nearly 9 points of the savings in the first quarter and financed the following phases.
Migration to the MEM (months 2-7)
The biggest lever. The plant qualified comfortably as a Qualified User —4.2 MW, a healthy load factor— but had never migrated due to a lack of familiarity with the process. The registration was filed with the CRE, the load profile was characterized, and an RFQ was issued to several Qualified Suppliers.
With the offers normalized, the spread was negotiated along with a contract with a mostly-firm mix, suited to the operation's stable profile. The migration delivered nearly 20 points of savings over the CFE baseline.
Position management (month 7 onward)
Once the contract was signed, the work did not end. Market-position monitoring was set up to adjust the mix and verify that the supplier delivered what was agreed, as described in energy management in the MEM. That continuous management delivered the final points and, above all, sustained the savings over time.
Results at 12 months
| Item | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Annual electricity cost | ~$28,000,000 MXN | ~$19,300,000 MXN |
| Annualized saving | — | ~$8,700,000 MXN (31%) |
| Power factor | 0.88 (penalized) | 0.97 (no charge) |
| Supply regime | CFE Basic Supply | Qualified Supplier (MEM) |
| Unit cost | baseline | -31% |
| Financial item | Amount (MXN) |
|---|---|
| Total investment (CRE registration, rehabilitation, fees) | ~$1,150,000 |
| Annualized saving | ~$8,700,000 |
| Project payback | under 2 months |
The very short payback is explained by the fact that the biggest lever —migration— requires no relevant physical investment, only paperwork, negotiation, and management. The bulk of the saving came from buying energy well, not from buying equipment.
Lessons from the case
1. Big savings are almost never in the equipment
The plant had spent years seeking savings in physical efficiency (LED, drives) and had exhausted that margin. The 31% came from the purchasing regime and contract management, not from spending on hardware. It is the most common mistake: looking for savings where they are visible (the equipment) and not where they are large (the contract).
2. Qualifying and not migrating leaves money on the table
The plant had qualified as a Qualified User for years. Every year without migrating was uncaptured savings. The honest savings calculation confirms it: for stable multi-MW profiles, migration is the most profitable lever available.
3. Order matters: quick wins first
Attacking the bill and power factor first generated immediate cash that financed the migration. A project that starts with the big investment meets more internal resistance than one that arrives at the investment committee with savings already demonstrated.
4. Savings are only sustained through management
Without continuous management of the market position, the first year's savings erode. The contract is not the end; it is the beginning of active management.
Is your plant in a similar situation?
If your industrial plant consumes more than 1 MW, has a healthy load factor, and remains on CFE Basic Supply, or if you believe you have already exhausted your savings margin because you only looked for it in the equipment, you are probably in a scenario comparable to this case —one of those we detail in when it makes sense to hire energy consulting—.
At Enerlogix we have executed Plan 360 Management with more than 50 industrial companies —chemicals, automotive, food, electronics, manufacturing—. Every case is different, but the pattern repeats: big savings are in how you buy and manage energy, not only in how you consume it.
Request a free Plan 360 Management evaluation or learn about our energy consulting service. We work with your real bill, not with generic scenarios.
Frequently asked questions
From four levers attacked at once, not from a single measure. Bill validation delivered nearly 3%, the power factor correction and demand management another 6%, migration to the Wholesale Electricity Market (MEM) as a Qualified User about 20%, and active management of the market position the remaining points. The biggest lever was migration, which requires no relevant physical investment, only paperwork, negotiation, and continuous management.
The total investment, including registration with the CRE, rehabilitation of the capacitor bank, and fees, was around 1,150,000 MXN, against an annualized saving of nearly 8,700,000 MXN. The payback was under two months. It is that short because the bulk of the saving came from buying energy better through market migration, not from investing in new equipment.
Because it had sought savings only where they are visible, in the equipment, with LED lighting and drives, and not where they are large, in the purchasing regime and contract management. It had qualified as a Qualified User for years without migrating to the market, which left on the table the most profitable lever available for a stable multi-MW profile.
Not automatically. The saving depends on consumption, load factor, the load zone, the current tariff, and the state of the equipment. A plant with demand above 1 MW, a healthy load factor, and still on CFE Basic Supply has high potential, but the real percentage is only determined by modeling its bill and its profile. That is why the first step is a diagnosis on real data, not a generic projection.
Because attacking the bill and power factor first generates immediate cash that finances the migration and demonstrates results to the investment committee. A project that starts with the big investment meets more internal resistance than one that arrives with savings already captured. Moving from low to high effort reduces risk and accelerates approval of the following phases.
