What Michigan restriction does the example preserve?
This illustration uses an invented hotel account in DTE Electric’s Michigan territory. There is no client, queue position, supplier agreement, or observed enrollment. Assume the account is an eligible business customer subject to the applicable choice framework. The numerical scenarios test possible access states without claiming that the actual utility currently has available participation or will admit this hotel on a specified date.
Michigan retail-choice statute, MCL 460.10a, reviewed October 12, 2026, describes the general 10% limit, subject to statutory exceptions, based on each utility’s average weather-adjusted retail sales for the preceding calendar year and queue treatment when its cap is fully subscribed. That is a utility-level participation restriction. It is not ten percent of this hotel’s kWh or a right to purchase a tenth of its supply competitively.
An access-conditioned comparison evaluates an offer only under explicit assumptions about whether and when the account can actually enroll. The bills hub explains the broader cost boundaries. Eligibility, access, agreement acceptance, and confirmed enrollment should remain separate fields in the purchasing record.
Which account and price inputs are assumed?
Assume annual hotel electricity of 600,000 kWh, distributed evenly as 50,000 kWh per month. Assume a utility-supply comparison component of $0.105 per kWh and an alternative component of $0.095. These are invented equivalent-component inputs, not DTE tariffs, alternative supplier quotations, or forecasts. The worksheet excludes delivery, demand, taxes, riders, and other unlisted charges.
Assume both component boundaries are comparable and contain any embedded brokerage compensation where applicable, with no separate modeled fee. A real comparison needs the amount or method, whether embedded or separate, and any agreement obligation before enrollment. Include compensation once. Do not infer a supplier’s pricing or a broker payment from the hypothetical unit difference.
Use an illustrative twelve-month decision period. Immediate access, access after four months, and no access during the period are teaching scenarios. No probabilities or wait-time estimates are assigned. Actual utility confirmation and provider terms must replace those assumptions before the owner relies on a purchasing forecast.
What does immediate access produce in the worksheet?
If all 600,000 kWh remain at the assumed utility component, cost is 600,000 × $0.105 = $63,000. If the alternate component is confirmed to begin on the first modeled day and applies to all quantity, cost is 600,000 × $0.095 = $57,000. The illustrative difference is $6,000 over the period.
That difference does not establish available savings or an actual enrollment. It depends on immediate access, comparable coverage, unchanged quantities, and the assumed price. Record those conditions alongside the number. A proposal that cannot start during the period should not be shown as a fully active alternative simply because its nominal component is lower.
| Hypothetical access scenario | Utility quantity | Alternative quantity | Alternative component | Total components |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No alternative access | 600,000 kWh | 0 | Not active | $63,000 |
| Immediate access | 0 | 600,000 kWh | $0.095/kWh | $57,000 |
| Access after four months | 200,000 kWh | 400,000 kWh | $0.095/kWh | $59,000 |
| Delayed access with revised offer | 200,000 kWh | 400,000 kWh | $0.108/kWh | $64,200 |
The table holds the utility component constant for teaching clarity. Actual utility pricing can change over the period. If so, calculate each applicable interval separately rather than interpreting this fixed reference as a future DTE price promise.
How does a four-month delay change the quantities?
Four months at 50,000 kWh monthly contain 200,000 kWh. The remaining eight months contain 400,000. Utility components cost $21,000, and alternate components cost $38,000, totaling $59,000. The difference from the all-utility illustration is $4,000, smaller than the immediate-access case’s $6,000.
The $2,000 difference between immediate and delayed access also reconciles as 200,000 kWh × ($0.105 − $0.095). It is a teaching opportunity difference under the assumed components, not documented loss from a real queue. The hotel cannot replace a utility access restriction with a spreadsheet start date.
If the hotel’s usage is seasonal, use actual period quantities instead of the equal-month assumption. A delayed start covering high-use months can have a different cost effect from the same number of delayed low-use months. The calendar and the quantity allocation must be retained so another reviewer can reconstruct the comparison.
What if the offer changes while access is unresolved?
For an adverse commercial scenario, assume access becomes available after four months but the feasible alternative component is now an invented $0.108 per kWh. The first 200,000 kWh still cost $21,000 at the utility assumption. The remaining 400,000 cost $43,200, bringing total components to $64,200. This is $1,200 above the all-utility reference.
This scenario does not claim a supplier can revise a binding fixed agreement unilaterally. It assumes the earlier offer is no longer applicable under its own conditions and a new offer is evaluated. The actual documents determine validity, acceptance, conditions, and obligations. Read them before deciding whether the hotel has an active price commitment or merely a proposal contingent on access.
At the stated four-month delay, the alternative component that matches the all-utility reference is $0.105: ($63,000 − $21,000) ÷ 400,000 = $0.105 per kWh. That threshold follows directly from the equal-component assumptions. It is not a market quotation, recommendation, or reason to disregard differences in terms and coverage.
How should unavailable access be budgeted?
If no alternative access occurs in the modeled period, all 600,000 kWh remain under the assumed utility comparison, costing $63,000. A signed document alone should not move those quantities into the alternate column. Obtain current account status and enrollment evidence. A queue reference may support administrative tracking without proving an active supply date.
DOE’s utility-rate evaluation guidance supports reviewing the applicable tariff and actual load profile even where supply access is restricted. The hotel can still investigate delivery components, equipment operation, and data quality. Those actions should not be represented as changing the state’s participation cap or establishing immediate competitive enrollment.
Preserve the utility alternative as a real decision branch, using actual current and future-period treatment when available. If a project changes demand or quantity, update both branches consistently. A smaller forecast should not be treated as proof that the utility’s queue can accept the customer; access confirmation remains separate.
What operational and contractual records matter most?
DOE’s energy information system guidance describes tracking and analysis capabilities. Keep monthly quantities, account identifiers, ownership, and dated changes available so the purchasing team can respond accurately if access becomes available. A forecast based on an obsolete room wing or equipment plan can make a new offer incomparable with the current utility scenario.
Review volume, term, renewal, enrollment conditions, and any return-to-utility treatment with the actual provider documents. The commission’s choice framework is not a substitute for that agreement. Identify who receives utility notices, who requests current status, and who can authorize a price or start-date decision. Common management should not imply authority that the legal customer has not granted.
For a real comparison, include broker compensation once and distinguish payment obligations before and after enrollment where the arrangement addresses them. Do not assume a fee disappears if access fails or arises only upon delivery without reading the disclosure. The worksheet’s simplified component treatment does not decide those actual commercial questions.
What should be verified before the owner approves a decision?
- Confirm utility territory, customer classification, current access, and queue status.
- Reconcile account history and quantities for each modeled period.
- Match supply components and disclose compensation without duplication.
- Read price validity, enrollment conditions, and obligations if access is delayed or unavailable.
- Compare immediate, delayed, unchanged-utility, and revised-offer scenarios explicitly.
- Obtain actual enrollment confirmation and reconcile the first applicable invoice.
The Massachusetts aggregation example uses a municipal-plan enrollment framework. The Ohio holdover example models delayed replacement after an assumed expiry, while the Delaware new-meter example models a property’s opening process. Their timing lessons do not establish Michigan access for this hypothetical account.