Commercial energy / Buyer guidance
Compare gas offers after normalizing units, seasonal volumes and delivery scope
Avoid misleading gas rate comparisons with matched units, a seasonal-cost worksheet and explicit supply exclusions.
Normalize the unit before ranking the price
A quote per therm cannot be compared numerically with a quote per MMBtu, Mcf or Ccf. Copy the unit exactly, distinguish energy from physical volume and retain any account-specific heat-content conversion. The EIA units reference supports the distinction. One MMBtu equals ten therms; a volume-to-energy conversion needs the applicable heating value.
Then match customer entity, meters, delivery dates and the quantity schedule. Ask whether the quoted price reaches the utility city gate, another specified delivery point or a defined customer supply scope. Do not assume a commodity quote includes utility delivery or every associated service.
Build a monthly cost bridge
For each month, record forecast quantity, unit price, fixed charge and any separately specified component. Add the monthly amounts to calculate the term total. Where an offer uses an index, show stated scenario inputs rather than treating an unknown future index as zero. Where an offer has quantity limits, show those alongside the forecast.
Keep a second list for unresolved obligations: imbalance responsibility, operational notices, early termination, credit, renewal and changes in law. Obtain written compensation and supplier-panel disclosures if an intermediary is involved. A cost ranking should not imply that a broader pool of suppliers was reviewed than the evidence shows.
Worked example: equal-looking rates can conceal different seasonal totals
Fictional annual supply comparison: forecast consumption is 30,000 therms in winter and 10,000 therms outside winter, totaling 40,000 therms or 4,000 MMBtu. Offer A is $0.55/therm throughout, plus $50 per month. Offer B is $5.20/MMBtu in winter and $4.80/MMBtu outside winter, plus $100 per month. Assume identical modeled supply scope and no other differences for the arithmetic only.
A costs (40,000 × $0.55) + (12 × $50) = $22,600. For B, winter quantity is 3,000 MMBtu and other-month quantity is 1,000 MMBtu. Its total is (3,000 × $5.20) + (1,000 × $4.80) + (12 × $100) = $21,600. B is $1,000 lower under these invented assumptions.
B's commodity-only weighted rate is $20,400 ÷ 4,000 = $5.10/MMBtu, or $0.51/therm. Its fee-inclusive modeled rate is $21,600 ÷ 4,000 = $5.40/MMBtu. Neither figure includes utility delivery, taxes or any omitted service. No market offer or achieved saving is represented.
Ask for evidence behind a materially lower amount
Have the supplier confirm included components against the same consumption schedule. Ask whether a lower figure depends on an introductory period, minimum usage, separate capacity amount or an unpriced index. If an input cannot be confirmed, identify its effect as unresolved rather than presenting the apparent difference as money available to the business.
The offer comparator can check normalized flat-price inputs. It does not create the heating-value conversion or a seasonal forecast. Retain the calculation sheet and final signed schedule so the first invoice can be reconciled to the actual accepted offer.
Sources and limits
EIA supports the unit definitions, not the example contract. Ohio's gas supplier questions also prompt review of billing arrangements. Eligibility and actual terms remain account-specific.