Ohio select-service holdover scenario

What does this hypothetical Ohio renewal illustrate?

Assume a select-service hotel in an eligible Ohio investor-owned utility service area has a fixed supply term ending April 30 of an illustrative future year. The property, agreement, customer, and dates are invented. There is no actual renewal failure or client result. The example tests a purchasing decision before a deadline rather than claiming that an Ohio hotel was charged a particular rate.

PUCO’s energy-choice FAQ, reviewed October 12, 2026, explains that Ohio choice is not available to every consumer and that the distribution utility remains responsible for delivery when a supplier changes. Verify the actual account’s eligibility and agreement. The hypothetical assumes a competitive-supply account; it does not apply a residential protection or universal commercial notice rule.

Here, holdover exposure means the modeled cost of energy purchased during an assumed period after the fixed component expires and before replacement pricing begins. Whether a real account enters that state, how it is priced, and what notice is required must be established from the actual documents. Use the bills hub to distinguish this supply component from delivery and other invoice charges.

Which quantities and prices are assumptions?

Assume consumption averages 2,000 kWh daily for 45 days, giving 90,000 kWh. Assume the old fixed component was $0.075 per kWh, the holdover component is $0.125, and an available replacement component is $0.090. Every price is a teaching input rather than a tariff quote or market offer. Assume the listed components already include any brokerage compensation and cover equivalent items.

The worksheet excludes utility delivery, demand, taxes, and other charges. It also assumes no termination fee or administrative adjustment solely to isolate timing arithmetic. Those omissions are not statements that a real agreement lacks such charges. Record every applicable item before using a similar calculation in a purchasing comparison.

For the room-night illustration, assume 120 available rooms and 75% occupancy throughout the 45 days. Occupied room nights are 120 × 45 × 75% = 4,050. This denominator matches the energy period. Using a 30-day room-night total against 45 days of energy would create a misleading ratio even if each individual number looked reasonable.

What are the full-period alternatives?

For 45 days entirely at the assumed holdover component, supply costs 90,000 kWh × $0.125 = $11,250. A replacement beginning on the first day would instead cost 90,000 × $0.090 = $8,100. Their illustrated difference is $3,150. This comparison assumes the timely replacement is feasible and has identical coverage and no omitted switching cost.

The old component would have produced 90,000 × $0.075 = $6,750 if it had remained available. That is a counterfactual reference, not an offer the hotel can accept after expiry. Comparing holdover solely with that old price gives a $4,500 difference but does not establish the avoidable cost of the actual purchasing decision. The feasible replacement comparison is the relevant one here.

DOE’s time-variable pricing guidance describes changing price mechanisms. The example’s assumed holdover component is constant for simplicity. A real agreement could specify a changing formula, so the worksheet must use the component applicable to each measured period rather than assigning one invented number to an entire bill.

How does a delayed switch change the result?

Assume replacement pricing begins only after 30 holdover days. At the assumed 2,000 kWh daily, the first 30 days contain 60,000 kWh and the last 15 days contain 30,000 kWh. Holdover costs $7,500, and replacement costs $2,700. Total illustrated supply is $10,200. The quantities add to 90,000 kWh and the days add to 45.

The delayed switch is $2,100 above timely replacement and $1,050 below staying in holdover for the entire period. The $2,100 calculation can also be written as 60,000 kWh × ($0.125 − $0.090). It is an assumed opportunity difference, not documented savings. Both methods should reconcile before the worksheet is presented to the owner.

If only ten holdover days occur, the first portion is 20,000 kWh costing $2,500; the remaining 70,000 kWh at replacement costs $6,300. Total supply becomes $8,800, or $700 above timely replacement. This additional scenario isolates timing. It does not promise that a supplier can complete an actual switch within ten days.

What if consumption is not evenly distributed?

The daily average simplifies the first scenarios, but an actual hotel may consume different quantities before and after the switch. Suppose the 30 holdover days instead contain 66,000 kWh and the final 15 contain 24,000. Total consumption remains 90,000. The component cost becomes $8,250 + $2,160 = $10,410, which is $210 above the equal-daily delayed-switch scenario.

This shape sensitivity can reflect an assumed busy event or weather period before enrollment. It does not demonstrate that either occurred at a real hotel. Obtain interval or prorated usage evidence appropriate to the actual billing process. If allocation is estimated, label the estimate and explain how it was made instead of presenting it as metered daily consumption.

DOE’s utility-rate evaluation guidance supports assessing load and tariff structure together. A new supplier component may coincide with unchanged or changing delivery charges. Do not attribute a whole-bill dollar difference to holdover until quantity, billing period, demand, and other components have been reconciled.

How should room-night and budget views be reconciled?

Using the assumed 4,050 occupied room nights, full holdover supply is approximately $2.78 per occupied room night. Timely replacement is $2.00, and the 30-day delayed switch is about $2.52. These ratios cover only the illustrated supply component. They are not total energy cost per occupied room and should not be displayed without the stated boundary.

If occupancy falls to an assumed 60% while consumption remains 90,000 kWh, occupied room nights become 3,240. Full holdover then appears as about $3.47 per occupied room night, even though the supply dollars remain $11,250. A denominator change can therefore worsen the ratio without a second price increase. Keep energy quantities, dollars, and room nights visible separately.

Budget the timing risk as a scenario rather than treating an unconfirmed switch date as fact. The owner’s decision may depend on the amount of cost variation it can absorb, the available alternatives, and contractual requirements. The example supplies arithmetic, not probabilities for enrollment delay or future price movements.

What must be verified before treating a replacement as active?

Ohio’s CRES definitions distinguish retail-service roles, including suppliers and brokers. Establish the provider’s role and the customer’s authorized signer. A broker helping arrange an offer is not evidence that the supplier has enrolled the meter or that the utility has accepted the requested date.

1. Read the existing agreement’s end date, renewal mechanism, pricing treatment, and notice method.
2. Verify account identity, eligibility, and the earliest feasible replacement start date.
3. Compare equivalent components and disclose embedded or separate compensation once.
4. Send any required instruction through the contract’s method and retain proof.
5. Obtain enrollment confirmation and investigate any rejected or pending account.
6. Reconcile the first invoice’s quantities, periods, and components with the accepted agreement.

The ComEd fixed-versus-index example separates price structure from timing. The PJM capacity-tag example separates energy quantity from power obligations, while the Delaware new-meter example examines opening and enrollment evidence. Those distinctions help keep a renewal worksheet focused on the cost it actually models.