Electricity bandwidth clauses: test the measurement period and settlement rule

A percentage alone does not describe the obligation

A bandwidth review should answer two separate questions: how much electricity may depart from the agreed forecast, and what happens financially outside that range? Do not infer either answer from a sales description such as flexible or full requirements. Start with the executed agreement, product schedule and forecast attached to it. If no bandwidth provision appears, ask which other clauses address a closure, added production line or material load change.

Constellation's 2020 discussion of usage changes describes contractual usage bands. It is historical supplier commentary, not evidence of any supplier's current offer or your account's terms. The review below is an independently constructed method, not a standard contract specification.

Reconstruct the test before pricing the consequence

Copy the reference quantity, lower and upper limits, measurement period and aggregation rule into a worksheet. Is the test monthly, annual, interval-specific or applied separately to each meter? Can excess at one site offset a shortfall at another? Does a forecast revision require written acceptance? Then locate the settlement formula: repricing excess units, settling a shortfall, charging a separate amount or invoking a different remedy are different mechanisms.

Record whether weather changes, efficiency projects and business closures receive different treatment. A broad percentage applied to an annual portfolio can behave differently from the same percentage applied to each month. An annual total within tolerance does not establish that all monthly tests passed. Keep the signed forecast version with the worksheet so the reference cannot silently change during invoice review.

Worked example: annual balance can conceal a monthly breach

Hypothetical contract and consumption, not a real offer: the reference is 100,000 kWh per month, with a monthly band of 90% to 110%. January actual usage is 125,000 kWh and February is 75,000 kWh. The two-month total equals the 200,000 kWh reference. Nevertheless, January is 15,000 kWh above its upper boundary and February is 15,000 kWh below its lower boundary.

Assume, solely for this example, that January excess is billed at $0.14/kWh instead of the $0.09 contracted rate. Its incremental amount is 15,000 × ($0.14 − $0.09) = $750. Assume the invented shortfall rule separately charges $0.02 per kWh below the lower boundary: February adds $300. Total modeled adjustment is $1,050. A contract that settles the entire deviation rather than only boundary excess would produce a different result. These two formulas must not be borrowed as actual supplier terms.

Use the result to ask for a specific amendment

For a planned shutdown, show the month, meter and expected quantity, then request an agreed revised schedule or explicit treatment of that event. Ask for a worked supplier settlement using those exact quantities. If a response says there is no penalty, ask whether repricing, resale loss or a material-change remedy can still apply. Preserve the response with the final documents; a verbal explanation is not a substitute for reconciling conflicting contract text.

The load-profile guide helps assemble the forecast. The flat-rate offer comparator does not model bandwidth settlements; place those amounts beside its result rather than assuming they are included.

Sources and limits

The linked supplier article supports the existence of usage-band provisions, not the invented percentages or settlement arithmetic. Only the applicable agreement establishes an account's boundaries and remedies. This example excludes delivery, demand charges, taxes and other supply adjustments.