Commercial energy / Buyer guidance
Natural gas offer worked example: school operations
An explicitly hypothetical gas 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 80,000 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 $65 each month in supplier fees.
| Entered component | Offer A | Offer B |
|---|---|---|
| Annual commodity amount | $49,600 | $48,000 |
| Annual recurring supplier fees | $0 | $780 |
| Modeled annual supply total | $49,600 | $48,780 |
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 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 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: isolate an assumed heating component
Illustrative baseline model: a campus uses 90,000 therms in a year. Suppose a separately reviewed estimate assigns 30,000 therms to non-weather-sensitive uses and 60,000 to heating. If a teaching weather scenario reduces only the heating component by 10%, modeled annual use becomes 30,000 + 54,000 = 84,000 therms. Applying 10% to the whole account would instead give 81,000 and overstate this scenario's change by 3,000 therms.
The split and response are assumptions, not a validated campus regression. Kitchens, pools, residences and summer programs can alter baseload. Building closures and boiler changes can alter the meter boundary or system efficiency. Record those facts before attributing a difference to a control project.
Use the academic and residence calendars, heating-weather record and actual gas units alongside the invoices. Do not compare an occupied term with an empty holiday period and describe the difference as a recurring efficiency result. A formal project needs a baseline and measurement plan suited to its boundary.
ENERGY STAR degree-day guidance supports the weather context. All campus figures above are independently constructed.