Commercial energy / Buyer guidance
Electricity offer worked example: school operations
An explicitly hypothetical electricity comparison for school operations: operating assumptions, fee arithmetic and contract limits.
An illustrative school decision
This example is independently constructed. It does not describe a customer, property or achieved result. Its purpose is to show how an operating question and a fee can change a comparison. The figures below are assumptions, not typical usage, a benchmark or a market quote.
The operating question
Model the academic calendar, summer programs, sports facilities and seasonal shutdowns explicitly. A classroom building and an occupied dormitory do not share the same schedule. Public procurement and signing requirements also need to be checked by the responsible institution.
Equipment to investigate includes classroom HVAC, kitchens and campus equipment. The main constraints to document are term dates, summer use and buildings with different schedules. A useful activity measure may be energy per occupied student-day, provided its boundary and period remain consistent. Those records help explain the account; they do not determine supplier eligibility.
State the modeled purchase
Assume annual consumption of 800,000 kWh, identical start and end dates, and the same included cost components. Offer A has a flat rate of $0.092 per kWh and no monthly supplier fee. Offer B has a flat rate of $0.09 per unit and $65 each month in supplier fees.
| Entered component | Offer A | Offer B |
|---|---|---|
| Annual commodity amount | $73,600 | $72,000 |
| Annual recurring supplier fees | $0 | $780 |
| Modeled annual supply total | $73,600 | $72,780 |
The difference is $820 per year on the entered components. Offer B is lower in this specific model. Change the assumptions and the comparison can change. Use the offer comparison tool to reproduce the arithmetic; for a portfolio, enter the aggregate recurring fee only after checking how it is charged.
Costs and obligations outside the example
Utility delivery, demand, taxes, variable pass-throughs, deposits, promotional credits, termination and project costs are not modeled. Both agreements would need the same inclusions for the totals above to be a fair comparison. An apparently lower modeled cost is not a recommendation to sign.
For an electric offer, verify capacity, transmission, losses and demand treatment. A supply-rate reduction does not automatically alter the utility demand tariff. Use the demand calculator separately rather than counting the same component twice.
Test a change in the business
Ask what happens if occupancy, production or equipment differs from the assumed year. Read volume tolerances, minimums, assignment and site-closure terms. Identify quote validity, authorized signer, broker compensation and notice requirements. A proposed operating change must also meet safety, quality and comfort requirements.
For school operations, the decision record should connect the usage assumptions with term dates, summer use and buildings with different schedules. Record which assumptions are known, estimated or still awaiting records. A supplier pricing an old profile cannot be assumed to have accepted a new operating plan.
Verify an actual implementation
Retain the offer, comparison and executed agreement. Confirm enrollment and check the first invoice for the right meter, dates, units, product and fees. Explain differences in usage and billing periods before describing a lower invoice as a saving. This example makes no claim about what a real account would achieve.
Read the school operating guide, use the renewal planner and review the procurement playbook. Initial inquiries do not require account documents or receive calculator figures.
Context sources
EIA electricity cost components and EIA gas pricing explain broad price context. The numerical inputs and arithmetic here are independently constructed and are not attributed to those agencies as observed results.
Worked example: reconcile the academic calendar before changing controls
Hypothetical schedule check: a defined school load is expected to operate 42 weeks × 5 days × 12 hours, or 2,520 hours. Trend records in the teaching example show 2,800 hours, a 280-hour difference. If the relevant load averages 12 kW during those hours, the difference corresponds to 3,360 kWh.
Do not label that quantity waste without investigating it. Exams, sports, evening programs, custodial work and summer activities can legitimately extend schedules. A dormitory, kitchen or laboratory can need a different operating calendar from classrooms. Ask the responsible operator to identify the actual served spaces and approved schedule.
Keep a change log with term dates, exceptional events and any control revision. Compare the reporting period on the same basis rather than annualizing a quiet vacation week. Separate energy changes from a supplier-rate change and from any demand component. Public or institutional purchasing approvals also need to be checked by the institution rather than inferred from a contractor's proposal.
DOE re-tuning guidance supports using operating data to investigate controls. These hours and kW are invented examples, not school benchmarks or verified savings.