What was happening before Pilot

The pattern across the portfolio fit a common profile for retail businesses where energy isn't a strategic focus:

• Default utility tariffs on power at most sites — no competitive procurement strategy, no portfolio aggregation, contracts running at retail rates with no scrutiny
• Default utility supply on gas — substantial markup over wholesale across HVAC and water heating load
• Water bills paid without audit — sewer charges calculated as a flat percentage of water consumption, regardless of how much water actually entered the sewer; tariff classifications inherited and never validated
• Renewables on the agenda, off the timeline — corporate sustainability commitments existed; the implementation framework didn't
• No portfolio view — utility spend was a line item in the financials, not a managed function

For a 40-site portfolio with $4.5–5M in spend, the cumulative inefficiency was substantial. The first audit alone revealed material recoverable value across multiple categories — much of it through corrections that didn't require any operational change.

What Pilot did

A comprehensive utility engagement across four coordinated workstreams. The breadth was deliberate — recoveries in any one category alone would have been meaningful, but together the workstreams compounded.

1. Power procurement

• Aggregated procurement across all sites by utility territory, leveraging portfolio buying power instead of site-by-site retail tariffs
• Layered hedging with documented trigger prices replacing reactive renewal patterns
• Multi-supplier portfolio matching each market with the supplier offering the best rates and contract terms
• Demand and tariff optimization — capacity charges, demand calculations, and rate-class assignment reviewed for each site and corrected where appropriate

2. Gas procurement

• Competitive gas supply across deregulated gas markets, moving sites off default utility tariffs onto market-rate supply with layered pricing
• Aggregated buying across the portfolio, achieving rates that no single site could negotiate independently
• Operational coordination with HVAC and water heating systems to optimize gas usage during high-demand periods

3. Water solutions

• Comprehensive bill audits across 40+ accounts — tariff misclassifications corrected, calculation errors caught, refunds and credits pursued where applicable
• Sewer credit applications for non-sewered water consumption (irrigation, cooling tower evaporation, certain process uses)
• Flow control optimization at sites where the analysis supported the investment — typically delivering 15–25% water reduction with no operational impact
• Sub-metering installations at sites with significant irrigation or process water use, enabling credit applications and ongoing operational visibility

4. Renewables advisory

• REC procurement coordination aligned with the corporate sustainability framework — vintages, geographic attribution, and attribute claims documented for reporting
• Green tariff evaluation at sites where utility-provided green options offered competitive economics
• PPA structuring where the portfolio scale supported a long-term offtake — a smaller-portfolio approach than national hyperscalers use, but the same strategic framework
• On-site solar evaluation at flagship locations with appropriate roof or canopy space and supportive economics

What changed

• ~$2.3M in annual savings across the engagement, drawn from all four workstreams
• Utility administration consolidated — 40+ sites, three utilities, single point of contact
• Sustainability commitments operationalized — REC procurement, green tariffs, PPA structuring framework, all aligned with corporate reporting
• Operational visibility improved — monthly portfolio dashboards covering all three utility streams plus sustainability progress
• Internal team focused on leases, store operations, and growth — utility management no longer on the daily to-do list

Why this case worked

Several structural factors made this engagement deliver materially more than a narrower scope would have:

• Multi-utility scope captured recoveries single-utility engagements miss. A power-only engagement would have addressed roughly 60–65% of total utility spend. Adding gas and water brought the remaining 35–40% into scope — and the recoveries on those were proportionally larger because they had been even less scrutinized.
• Inherited inefficiency was substantial. 40+ sites of default tariffs, unaudited bills, and reactive renewals had accumulated real inefficiency over many years. The first comprehensive audit cycle alone surfaced recoverable value that more frequently-audited portfolios wouldn't have available.
• Scale was right for the engagement. 40+ sites and $4.5–5M is large enough to justify portfolio-level analytics, aggregated procurement, and comprehensive audits — but small enough that internal energy expertise wouldn't be a sensible investment. External engagement was the rational fit.
• Renewables fit the existing sustainability commitments. The corporate framework already existed; what was missing was the implementation pathway. Renewables advisory provided that without requiring new strategic commitments — just operational execution against goals that were already on record.

This case study describes a real Pilot client engagement. Identifying details have been anonymized; financial figures are approximate.