What is assumed in this ComEd-area comparison?
This is an illustrative purchasing exercise for a hypothetical limited-service hotel in the ComEd delivery area. There is no client, address, supplier offer, or observed result. Assume the account is eligible for competitive supply after its classification and authority have been verified. Illinois Commerce Commission choice guidance, reviewed October 12, 2026, provides the local choice framework; it does not provide the example’s prices or prove a particular account’s enrollment status.
Assume 60,000 kWh of monthly electricity, 100 available rooms, a 30-day month, and 70% room occupancy. Assume a fixed supply component of $0.085 per kWh, including an embedded broker fee of $0.003 per kWh. For the index alternative, assume an adder of $0.006 per kWh, including embedded compensation of $0.002. These are invented worksheet inputs, not live market rates, utility prices, or representations of customary compensation.
An equivalent-component comparison evaluates offers covering the same defined price components against the same quantities and period. Here, both illustrations cover only the assumed supply component and adder. Delivery, taxes, capacity or transmission items outside that stated coverage, and other charges are excluded. The bills hub explains why those exclusions must remain visible.
How is the fixed component calculated?
The fixed component is 60,000 kWh × $0.085 per kWh = $5,100 for the assumed month. Its embedded compensation is 60,000 × $0.003 = $180, already inside that $5,100. Adding $180 again would overstate the illustrated cost. The remaining $4,920 is simply the assumed component after identifying that embedded fee; it is not a separate offer available to the hotel.
If monthly consumption instead becomes 66,000 kWh, the same assumed unit component gives $5,610. If consumption falls to 54,000 kWh, it gives $4,590. These quantity scenarios demonstrate that a fixed unit component does not establish a constant monthly expenditure. They assume no volume penalties or additional adjustments; the actual agreement must establish how changed usage is treated.
Before using a real fixed offer, identify its included items, exceptions, start date, and renewal terms. A title such as fixed supply is insufficient to prove identical coverage. Keep the written component schedule beside the worksheet. The comparison should not treat an excluded capacity item as included merely because another offer incorporates it into its unit price.
What does the base index scenario cost?
For the base scenario, assume three teaching buckets containing 20,000 kWh each. Their assumed energy prices are $0.045, $0.075, and $0.120 per kWh. These buckets simplify an index worksheet; they are not actual ComEd or PJM hourly prices. A real indexed agreement requires its specified settlement location, intervals, adjustments, and consumption matching.
| Assumed bucket | Consumption | Assumed energy component | Extended energy cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower-price periods | 20,000 kWh | $0.045/kWh | $900 |
| Middle-price periods | 20,000 kWh | $0.075/kWh | $1,500 |
| Higher-price periods | 20,000 kWh | $0.120/kWh | $2,400 |
| Total | 60,000 kWh | $0.080/kWh weighted | $4,800 |
The assumed adder is 60,000 × $0.006 = $360, bringing the index component to $5,160. Its embedded broker compensation is 60,000 × $0.002 = $120, already included in that $360. The effective illustrated component is $5,160 ÷ 60,000 = $0.086 per kWh. Under these particular assumptions, the index component is $60 above the fixed component.
DOE’s time-variable pricing guidance describes pricing structures that vary with time. The relevant lesson is to connect consumption timing to the chosen pricing mechanism. It does not establish that indexed retail supply uses these buckets or that the hotel’s utility tariff follows the same formula.
What changes in favorable and adverse price scenarios?
Hold the 60,000 kWh quantity and $0.006 adder constant. In a favorable scenario, assume every bucket’s energy component is $0.050 per kWh. Energy then costs $3,000, and the adder brings the component to $3,360. That is $1,740 below the assumed $5,100 fixed component. The difference is a scenario result, not expected savings or a statement about future markets.
In an adverse scenario, assume the three equal-volume buckets are $0.100, $0.120, and $0.180 per kWh. Their energy costs are $2,000, $2,400, and $3,600, totaling $8,000. Add $360 to obtain $8,360, which is $3,260 above the fixed illustration. The weighted effective component is approximately $0.13933 per kWh.
The purchasing choice therefore needs a risk discussion. An owner whose budget cannot accommodate the adverse scenario may evaluate price stability differently from one able to absorb variation. Neither scenario has an assigned probability. Do not average them into an expected cost without a supported probability model and an explanation of its limits.
How does the same price pattern respond to a different load shape?
Return to the base prices but change the assumed consumption distribution to 48,000 kWh in lower-price periods, 3,000 in middle-price periods, and 9,000 in higher-price periods. Total energy remains 60,000 kWh. The energy cost becomes $2,160 + $225 + $1,080 = $3,465. Add $360 to obtain $3,825, or $0.06375 per kWh for the illustrated component.
This shape scenario differs from the equal-volume base without changing any bucket price. It shows why an arithmetic price average can mislead. It does not prove the hotel can move its consumption into that distribution. Guest comfort, breakfast preparation, hot water, laundry staffing, and equipment constraints must determine what changes are operationally feasible.
DOE’s utility-rate evaluation guidance supports examining the account’s load profile and tariff structure together. A real investigation should use intervals and the actual delivery tariff. Moving an indexed energy load may have a different effect on delivery demand, and another peak could remain even when consumption timing improves for the supply calculation.
How do occupied room nights change the presentation?
The assumed occupied room nights are 100 rooms × 30 days × 70% = 2,100. Dividing the fixed component by that denominator gives about $2.43 per occupied room night. The base index component gives about $2.46; the favorable scenario gives $1.60; and the adverse scenario gives about $3.98. These are supply-component ratios, not total energy cost per occupied room.
If occupancy becomes 50% while energy remains 60,000 kWh, the denominator is 1,500 occupied room nights. The fixed ratio becomes $3.40 even though its monthly component remains $5,100. This denominator scenario shows why an owner should retain both dollars and room nights. A higher ratio does not by itself establish a higher supplier rate or an equipment problem.
What must be reviewed outside the teaching worksheet?
PJM’s PLC and NSPL methodology inventory identifies utility-specific load-obligation methods, including ComEd’s. Capacity and transmission treatment should therefore be checked against the account and agreement rather than assumed away. This example does not calculate a ComEd tag or claim that a supply-price change changes those obligations immediately.
- Verify customer identity, choice eligibility, current agreement, and available start dates.
- Obtain actual monthly quantities and the intervals required by the proposed index formula.
- Match included components and identify every excluded or adjustable item.
- Disclose embedded or separate broker compensation and count it once.
- Evaluate quantity, price, and operational-shape scenarios independently.
- Review volume terms, notices, enrollment, and the first invoice after acceptance.
The Ohio holdover example examines timing instead of index exposure. The PJM capacity-tag example examines an obligation measured in power units, and the Texas four-coincident-peak example shows a different tariff mechanism. Keep those questions separate when turning this illustration into a property-specific decision.