Commercial energy / Buyer guidance
Natural gas offer worked example: multi site operations
An explicitly hypothetical gas comparison for multi site operations: operating assumptions, fee arithmetic and contract limits.
An illustrative multi site 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
Keep commodity, utility, tariff and expiry at meter level before totaling a portfolio. A monthly fee charged to every meter is not the same as one fee for the entire agreement. Do not assume every location can enroll in a single product or that moving dates has no transition cost.
Equipment to investigate includes common-area HVAC, lifts and shared lighting. The main constraints to document are tenant billing, meter boundaries and changing occupancy. A useful activity measure may be common-service energy per occupied area, 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 150,000 therms, identical start and end dates, and the same included cost components. Offer A has a flat rate of $0.62 per therm and no monthly supplier fee. Offer B has a flat rate of $0.6 per unit and $390 each month in supplier fees. The fee assumes six meters at $65 each; that meter count is also illustrative.
| Entered component | Offer A | Offer B |
|---|---|---|
| Annual commodity amount | $93,000 | $90,000 |
| Annual recurring supplier fees | $0 | $4,680 |
| Modeled annual supply total | $93,000 | $94,680 |
The difference is $1,680 per year on the entered components. Offer A 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 a gas offer, verify therm versus Mcf pricing, the bill heat-content basis, location and transport components, and who manages balancing or nominations. Do not treat a commodity-only price as a delivered total.
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 multi site operations, the decision record should connect the usage assumptions with tenant billing, meter boundaries and changing occupancy. 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 multi site 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 gas units before aggregating locations
Invented two-site record: Site A reports 1,000 Ccf with an assumed bill factor of 1.02 therms/Ccf, giving 1,020 therms. Site B reports 2,000 therms directly. The comparable energy total is 3,020 therms. Adding the printed numbers without conversion gives 3,000 with no valid common unit.
Use each site's actual heat-content factor and period rather than applying this example's factor to the entire portfolio. A factor, meter multiplier or reporting unit can differ between accounts or periods. Keep the original unit and conversion in the roster so another reviewer can reproduce the aggregate.
After units are aligned, verify location, transportation, fees, volume terms and service dates separately. A company-wide total does not establish that one supplier can serve every meter or that one transportation arrangement governs all sites. Preserve account-specific exceptions instead of forcing them into a single headline rate.
EIA energy-unit guidance supports the measurement distinction. The volume, factor and quantities are fictional teaching inputs and no delivered-price or savings claim is made.