FAQ.

kWattWorks helps construction, industrial, and remote-site teams understand what site power costs — and what they could save instead. We model your current setup against practical alternatives, help integrate the right mix of grid, generator, and battery equipment, and verify the results against our numbers.

No. We don’t manufacture, sell, or rent power equipment — our model isn’t built to move a specific product. We work with established manufacturers to specify, size, and manage the combination that fits your site, schedule, and numbers.

Not primarily. We treat power like labour, equipment, or materials: a cost to be understood, priced, and managed. Lower diesel use and emissions can be real outcomes, but the business case starts with cost control and better energy decisions.

Model: we compare your current power costs against practical alternatives before you commit money. Integrate: if the numbers make sense, we help source, size, and manage the right mix of grid, generator, and battery equipment. Verify: we measure the result against the model, turning “should save” into a number you can stand behind.

Yes — a Model engagement can stand alone. Many clients stop there because the numbers themselves are the useful part, whether they act on them with us or not.

Model engagements are typically a fixed project fee. Integrate engagements usually tie part of the fee to verified savings rather than billing it all upfront. Either way, you’ll know what the opportunity looks like before committing to a larger change.

Suppliers model around the equipment they provide, and GCs are focused on building the job, not owning the power strategy. kWattWorks sits in the gap: independent enough to compare options, practical enough to make the chosen solution work on site.

Often, yes — if someone has the time to model load profiles against your actual utility rate structure and compare equipment across suppliers. In practice that work competes with delivering the job, so it gets estimated rather than modelled. That gap is the engagement.

Both — and we’re careful to label which is which. Completed work is described as measured or verified only when the data supports it; anything still in planning stays a modelled projection until it’s field-verified. See Projects for current and completed work.

That’s why Verify exists. On Integrate engagements, we measure actual performance against the model. If savings-based pricing is part of the engagement, our fee depends on that verified performance — not on a projection.

Because running fine doesn’t tell you what the power costs. Fuel, deliveries, rentals and servicing usually get rolled into one line. Most generators are also sized for the few minutes a day when everything runs at once. The rest of the shift they sit at low load, burning fuel and adding engine hours to meet demand that isn’t there. Modelling doesn’t assume anything is wrong. It puts a number on what your power costs.

Sites where diesel-based temporary or remote power is a meaningful cost or operational constraint: tower cranes, hoists, temporary site power, remote work areas, off-grid operations, and high-rise or urban builds with limited, delayed, or expensive utility connections.

No. Model works for an existing site or one still being planned. If you have just a basic plan or if you have early data — fuel logs, utility bills, generator run hours, equipment schedules, or load estimates — we can build an initial baseline proposal right away.

No. Contractor size matters less than the size, cost, and complexity of the power problem. If power is a real line item, schedule risk, or recurring constraint, it’s worth a look into solutions that are more efficient.

kWattWorks is based in British Columbia and currently focused on projects in B.C. and Alberta.

Rough project details, any consumption data you have, and a basic picture of how and where power matters most on site. Useful inputs: utility bills, fuel logs, generator run hours, equipment schedules, crane or hoist details, and remote work areas.

No. A Model engagement runs alongside planning, not instead of it — the goal is a better power decision before changing course gets expensive.

It depends on site complexity and how quickly the starting data is available. Smaller reviews move fast once the data is in hand; more complex sites need more modelling time. You’ll get a specific timeline before committing to anything.