I agree with the industry claims that reducing reactive power flow > reduces circulating amps on the wiring > reduces wiring I2R losses. I disagee with claims that wiring I2R losses from excess VAR flow is 10% or more of the bill.

To attempt to validate or illustrate the claims made, here is the calculation backwards:

Known variables from claims or assumed for the excercise:

1: average home electric bill = $150.
2. assumed kwh billing rate = $ .12
3. assumed pfc correction: from .8 to 1.0 , assumption of 20% VAR mitigated by device
4. claimed savings is 10% or $15. monthly

Known constants: 1 month = 720 hours

Claimed savings method: reducing kw = I2R loss by reducing I, current flow from VAR flow

Solve for the unknown variable R, the resistance of the wiring that is causing I2R, conversion of current flow to heat

By dimensional analysis, the customer's electric bill of $150 / month at .12 kwh solves to 1.736 kW average continuous, 7/24. Since this is .8 of kVA. kVA = 2.17 average and KVARs = .434

434 VARs at 240 volts = 1.8 amps flowing, average continouosly. The claim made is this VAR flow can be mitigated (yes) and result in saving 10% on the electric bill (no).

1.8 useless amps are flowing on the customer's wiring. If there were 100% conversion of this flow to heat, the customer would have to pass the 1.8 amps over a suitable resistance to convert this flow to heat. What wiring would be necessary?

434 VARs = I2R, amps = 1.8, solving for R = 133 ohms. From NEC chapter 9, table 9, #12 gauge home wiring has a resistance of 2.0 ohms / thousand feet. To get to 133 ohms, and to convert 434 vars entirely to heat billed as kW, the customer would need 66,000 ft of #12 wire with 1.8 excess amps on it.

If you find such customer, and he has any money left, have him sign something immediately relieving him of his excess capital. Better you get it than FPL