Compare Commercial Electricity Offers Apples to Apples
By Illinois Commercial Energy editorial team
Reviewed by JakenEnergy commercial energy team
The lowest advertised cents per kWh is not necessarily the lowest-cost commercial electricity offer. An apples-to-apples comparison converts every proposal into the same delivery period, usage profile, charge scope, and risk assumptions.
Download the commercial electricity offer comparison CSV. It is a blank template, not a quote or calculator output.
Step 1: freeze the comparison inputs
Before opening supplier prices, create a control sheet with utility and service class, accounts, delivery dates, monthly and interval usage, current contract dates, known capacity inputs, credit requirements, and decision criteria. Every supplier must price the same accounts and term.
Step 2: map the charge scope
For each offer, record whether the quoted price includes, excludes, or passes through:
| Component | Include status | Required evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Energy | fixed/index/formula | price attachment |
| Capacity | included/pass-through | definition and reset rule |
| Transmission | included/pass-through | definition and reset rule |
| Line losses | included/pass-through | loss factor or language |
| Ancillary services | included/pass-through | contract section |
| Renewable/compliance costs | included/pass-through | contract section |
| Balancing/shape | included/pass-through | tolerance or formula |
| Monthly/account fees | dollar amount | proposal or contract |
| Broker compensation | embedded/direct/unknown | written disclosure |
| Taxes | treatment | price definition |
“All-in” is not a sufficient answer. Require the contract definition.
Step 3: calculate a common annual cost
For a fixed volumetric component:
annual energy dollars = price per kWh × modeled kWh
Then add separately modeled capacity, transmission, fees, and pass-throughs. For an index product, use the same monthly or hourly load profile and market-price scenario across suppliers. Do not compare an index product's expected value to a fixed product without showing volatility and stress cases.
The output should include:
base expected cost | high-load cost | market-stress cost | fixed fees | maximum known termination exposure
Step 4: score contract risk
Cost and risk are separate columns. Review fixed-price exclusions, change-in-law terms, usage bandwidth, meter changes, credit support, assignment, early termination damages, auto-renewal notice, and post-expiration pricing. Have qualified counsel review material legal terms.
Step 5: document data quality
Classify each input:
- A — primary: bill, interval file, executed contract, tariff;
- B — supplier-provided: written proposal or clarification;
- C — modeled: documented forward or operating assumption;
- D — missing: unresolved.
Do not present a precise savings percentage when a material input remains D. Request clarification or show a range.
Worked comparison structure
Suppose Offer A has a lower energy price but passes through capacity and transmission. Offer B has a higher stated price that includes both. The correct comparison estimates those pass-throughs for Offer A under the same assumptions and shows the exposure if they reset above the base case.
The recommendation could favor Offer B for budget certainty even when Offer A has a slightly lower expected base case. That is a documented risk preference, not an arithmetic error.
Approval checklist
- All meters and delivery dates match.
- Usage is complete and units are consistent.
- Every cost component has an inclusion status.
- Broker compensation is disclosed or marked unresolved.
- Base and stress cases use the same assumptions.
- Supplier authorization and enrollment path are verified.
- Final contract matches the selected proposal.
- Notice and renewal dates are entered in a calendar.
- The decision memo states what is not guaranteed.
Keep proposals, contracts, clarification emails, model version, and approval together. The audit trail shows whether the decision was reasonable based on information available at the time.
Why a lower headline price can cost more
The reason "apples to apples" matters is that two suppliers can quote the same account and mean different things by the word "price." One offer may state a low energy rate but pass capacity and transmission through at whatever they settle to; another may state a higher rate that already includes them. Until both are placed on the same account, the same usage profile, and the same delivery period, the low number is not a lower cost — it is a smaller portion of an unknown total. The normalization steps above exist to close that gap so the decision rests on comparable totals rather than comparable-looking headlines.
Capacity is the component most often mishandled, because in the ComEd/PJM zone an account carries a capacity tag (its Peak Load Contribution) that reflects past peak behavior into future supply cost. A pass-through offer leaves that exposure with the customer; an included offer prices it in. Neither is automatically better, but they are not the same product, and a comparison that ignores the difference is not honest. For the mechanics, see how PJM capacity prices affect Illinois business bills.
Common normalization errors to avoid
- Comparing an index product's expected value against a fixed product without showing the volatility and stress cases that make the two genuinely different.
- Letting units drift — mixing kW with kWh, or a monthly fee with a per-unit charge — so the totals silently stop matching.
- Using different usage assumptions for different suppliers. One frozen usage file must feed every offer.
- Presenting a precise savings percentage while a material input is still missing. Show a range or resolve the input first.
- Comparing quotes with different price-expiration timestamps as if they were simultaneously available.
Frequently asked questions
What does "all-in" actually mean in a supplier quote? By itself, not enough. Require the contract definition of what "all-in" includes and excludes — capacity, transmission, line losses, ancillary services, and compliance costs each need an explicit inclusion status, not a marketing label.
Should I always pick the lowest expected-cost offer? Not necessarily. Cost and risk are separate columns. A business may reasonably prefer a higher-but-certain fixed offer over a slightly lower expected cost that carries pass-through exposure. That is a documented risk preference, not an error.
Do delivery charges belong in the comparison? No. Delivery is billed by the utility and is the same whichever supplier you choose, so keep it out of the supply comparison. Folding it in overstates the effect of the supply decision.
How do I compare a fixed offer to an index offer fairly? Run both against the same load profile and the same market-price scenarios, including at least one stress case, and show the fixed offer's exclusions alongside the index offer's volatility. See the commercial energy procurement overview for the wider process.
Sources
- Illinois Commerce Commission — Office of Retail Market Development
- Related guides: price to compare — when utility supply wins, broker fees and commissions, how PJM capacity prices affect Illinois business bills, and the commercial electricity overview.
Source check date: July 19, 2026.