Maine hotel winter gas scenario

What is assumed about the Maine hotel account?

This is a hypothetical hotel served with pipeline natural gas in Unitil’s Maine territory. Assume its actual classification and utility terms permit the illustrated supply arrangement and that a qualified supplier can serve it. There is no client, account, supplier offer, forecast, or observed winter outcome. The example does not cover propane, heating oil, or every Maine accommodation property.

Maine PUC’s commercial and industrial gas-choice guidance, reviewed October 12, 2026, describes bundled and transportation-only alternatives under each utility’s terms. It also distinguishes supplier registration from willingness or ability to serve a customer. Verify the actual service arrangement before discussing competitive components; the worksheet does not establish eligibility or supplier availability.

A winter gas sensitivity separates price changes, quantity changes, and their combined effect on a defined component boundary. The bills hub provides the broader fuel-bill context. Keeping these exposures separate helps finance understand why an invoice might change without attributing everything to one cause.

Which quantities and prices are assumptions?

Assume a baseline winter month uses 1,000 Dth: an invented 300 Dth for continuing hot-water and other activity plus 700 Dth for space heating. That allocation is a teaching assumption, not a submeter measurement or typical hotel end-use share. Assume a colder scenario adds 500 Dth of heating use, taking total quantity to 1,500 Dth.

Assume a Henry Hub-related commodity input of $4.00 per Dth and a local basis input of $2.00 per Dth, producing a $6.00 commodity component. Add an invented delivery component of $2.00 per Dth and separate broker compensation of $0.10 per Dth. The total modeled unit components are $8.10 per Dth. None is a current Unitil tariff, live supplier quote, market observation, or forecast.

The worksheet excludes fixed account charges, balancing, taxes, other riders, and any contract adjustment. It assumes the stated variable components apply to every modeled Dth. A real bill can use different determinants and formulas. Retain each actual line and its units before replacing these simplified teaching inputs.

How do Dth, therms, and Btu reconcile?

EIA’s Btu explanation provides the energy-unit context. One Dth is one million Btu and equals ten therms. Baseline 1,000 Dth is therefore 10,000 therms, while the colder 1,500 Dth is 15,000 therms. The quantities are energy, not a direct count of cubic feet independent of heat content.

DOE’s gas-bill guide explains unit and heating-value considerations. Do not combine a volume-unit bill with a per-Dth component without the appropriate conversion. A per-Dth component divided by ten gives its per-therm equivalent: $8.10 per Dth becomes $0.81 per therm in this example.

Baseline cost reconciles in either unit. The Dth method gives 1,000 × $8.10 = $8,100. The therm method gives 10,000 × $0.81 = $8,100. A worksheet producing different totals from these two methods has a conversion or component-boundary problem that should be resolved before review.

What does the baseline component breakdown show?

Henry Hub-related commodity contributes $4,000, and basis contributes $2,000. Delivery adds $2,000, while the separate brokerage fee adds $100. Total components are $8,100. The same 1,000 Dth passes through each price component; adding those quantities would not create 4,000 Dth of physical gas. Only the dollars are added across the lines.

EIA’s basis explanation, published in 2020, describes location-price differentials. The article’s historical values are not used here. The example’s $2.00 differential is an assumption. An actual offer needs its index, delivery location, basis mechanism, and stated coverage to establish what the customer pays.

How does price stress differ from cold-weather volume?

For the price-only scenario, assume the Henry Hub-related input rises to $5.00 and basis rises to $5.00 per Dth. Commodity plus basis becomes $10.00. At unchanged 1,000 Dth, the modeled total is $12,100, an increase of $4,000. This is an invented stress case, not a prediction that Maine basis will reach that value.

For the volume-only scenario, hold every base unit component unchanged but use 1,500 Dth. Total components become $12,150, an increase of $4,050. Half of the baseline quantity has been added, so cost rises by 50% under the assumed fully variable components. A real fixed customer charge would not rise that way, which is one reason the modeled boundary must be explicit.

Combine the price and quantity stresses to obtain 1,500 × $12.10 = $18,150. That is $10,050 above baseline, more than adding the two separate increases of $8,050. The remaining $2,000 is the interaction: an extra 500 Dth multiplied by the $4.00 higher unit component. Keeping this cross-effect visible helps avoid understating a combined winter scenario.

What does a hypothetical fixed commodity alternative change?

Assume an alternative fixes commodity plus basis at $6.50 per Dth for the stated period and covers the modeled quantities without another adjustment. This is an invented offer with explicitly simplified volume treatment. It does not represent a Unitil or supplier product. Delivery and separate compensation remain $2.10 per Dth, producing total modeled components of $8.60.

At 1,000 Dth, this fixed alternative costs $8,600, or $500 above the baseline indexed illustration. At 1,500 Dth, it costs $12,900, or $750 above the volume-only indexed case. Fixing the assumed commodity has a modeled cost in the favorable price scenario; it is not presented as always cheaper.

Against the price-stress case at 1,000 Dth, the difference is $12,100 − $8,600 = $3,500. Against combined stress at 1,500, it is $18,150 − $12,900 = $5,250. Those are scenario differences, not expected savings. No probability is assigned, and actual volume or pass-through provisions could change the comparison.

What evidence should support a real winter quantity forecast?

EIA’s gas-price factors identify weather, supply, demand, and related influences. The example uses weather as a hypothetical quantity driver, without claiming a forecast for the coming winter. A real hotel should connect monthly history with local conditions, equipment, occupied rooms, and continuing hot-water or kitchen activity.

Identify planned boiler work, heat-pump conversion, pool closure, laundry outsourcing, or seasonal wing changes where relevant. Keep the continuing-load assumption separate from space heating. A low-occupancy month may still require building protection and hot water, and an equipment project should not reduce the forecast before its timing and operating sequence are supported.

Broker compensation is separate in the example and included once at $0.10 per Dth. A real fee may be embedded or use another method. Disclose it and retain consistent treatment across indexed and fixed alternatives. Do not add a separate charge on top of an already embedded amount or assume every delivery component varies only with Dth.

What should be reviewed before selecting a winter structure?

1. Verify utility service terms, account eligibility, supplier availability, and purchasing authority.
2. Reconcile energy units, heat-content conversions, and the actual component boundary.
3. Build a supported monthly quantity forecast with continuing and weather-sensitive functions.
4. Test commodity, basis, volume, and their combined effect without invented probabilities.
5. Read volume, balancing, delivery, notice, and compensation provisions in comparable offers.
6. Verify enrollment and reconcile actual invoices against the final agreement and meter data.

The resort gas-layer example fixes selected commodity portions. The New York water-heating example changes fuel use, while the Connecticut laundry example tests equipment timing. Keep their assumptions separate from this Maine winter price-and-volume worksheet.