Commercial energy / Buyer guidance
Compare electricity offers using matched terms, quantities and cost scope
Build a decision-ready electricity comparison with fee break-even arithmetic, scope checks and documented exclusions.
Make the comparison reproducible
An electricity comparison should allow another reviewer to reach the same totals from the saved offers. Give each offer an identifier and retain its timestamp, expiry, customer entity, covered meters, start date, term, forecast quantities and product documents. An expired indicative email and an executable contract are different evidence. Label each rather than ranking them as if both can still be accepted.
Ohio's electricity supplier questions prompt review of rates and fees. The worksheet below goes further as an independently constructed commercial decision method; it does not imply every account can shop or every listed offer is available to that business.
Resolve scope before adding dollars
Create columns for the energy rate, fixed fees, separately billed supply components and utility charges excluded from both proposals. Mark uncertain items unresolved. Check the meter list and delivery dates, then record volume restrictions, early-exit exposure, renewal language and credit requirements beside the cost estimate. Do not invent a dollar value for an unresolved legal term merely to produce a single ranking.
If one offer includes a component and another passes it through, add a documented scenario for the latter or obtain a comparable inclusion. For a term longer than the budgeting period, disclose the full commitment as well as first-year cost. Keep broker compensation visible: request written disclosure of any embedded or separate charge and which suppliers participated. A comparison covers the offers actually reviewed, not an assumed entire market.
Worked example: a fee changes which rate is lower
Invented flat-rate offers for the same twelve months: A is $0.085/kWh with a $100 monthly supplier fee. B is $0.090/kWh with no monthly supplier fee. Both are assumed to cover the same supply components and exclude the same delivery charges and taxes.
At forecast usage of 300,000 kWh, A is (300,000 × $0.085) + (12 × $100) = $26,700. B is 300,000 × $0.090 = $27,000. A is $300 lower in this model. At 200,000 kWh, A is $18,200 and B is $18,000; B is $200 lower.
The annual break-even quantity is $1,200 ÷ ($0.090 − $0.085) = 240,000 kWh. This is why the forecast belongs in the comparison. The result is not an actual quote or guaranteed saving. If the fee is per meter rather than per customer, recalculate using the number of chargeable meters; do not reuse the one-fee result for a portfolio.
Review a sample bill and the acceptance route
Ask each shortlisted supplier to map the quoted schedule onto the same sample month. Reconcile any difference from the worksheet before signing. Confirm who has authority to accept, what constitutes acceptance and whether enrollment depends on credit or utility processing. Save the final executed version and acceptance confirmation rather than relying on the quote that preceded it.
Use the offer comparator for this kind of flat-rate and fixed-fee arithmetic. It does not resolve pass-through formulas, interval pricing or disputed contract rights. Add those analyses to the approval record separately.
Sources and limits
The regulator question list supplies a review prompt, not a commercial eligibility opinion. All rates, fees and quantities are hypothetical. This method compares modeled costs and documented obligations without promising that switching will reduce the total bill.