EN
PL
A contract priced on the average SPOT price is the worst of both worlds
A price calculated at the end of the month as the average of the SPOT market over the month just gone sounds reasonable: you pay "what the market was", with no thick margin built into a fixed price. Except that an agreement like this combines the flaws of both tariffs at once.
It sounds reasonable, it behaves like a casino
A company signing a contract like this removes the fixed-price buffer from itself — and rightly so, because a fixed price is the most expensive peace of mind you can buy. But in the process it removes something else: any influence over what it will ultimately pay.
Settlement on the average SPOT price of the month just gone means the size of the bill is set after the fact — with no way of responding while it happens.
The worst of both worlds
Picture a month in which the sky is overcast and the wind does not blow for ten days. SPOT climbs, and the customer receives an invoice calculated with no brake at all.
That is the worst of both worlds: the exposure of a dynamic tariff and the helplessness of a fixed one in one package. A game with six-figure stakes and compulsory play every month — with no cards you could actually play.
Why the structure of the contract matters more than it seems
The heart of it is simple: a tariff makes sense when it leaves the customer some influence over the bill. In a dynamic tariff, control converts directly into savings — you shift consumption into the cheapest intervals and you pay less. In a contract settled on an average from the past there is nothing to shift; the price has already "happened".
So before anyone even starts talking about optimising consumption, it is worth reading how the price is constructed. Even the best control system will not repair an agreement that by design takes the customer's influence over the outcome away.
A contract settled on last month's average SPOT price removes the fixed-price buffer, but it also removes any influence over the size of the bill — the worst of both worlds: the exposure of a dynamic tariff and the helplessness of a fixed one at the same time.
Percee works best in contracts where control converts directly into savings — as in a dynamic tariff, where the system reads day-ahead prices and arranges the profile around the cheapest intervals. Even under unfavourably structured agreements it can bring the bill down by working the gaps in the clauses, but that is rescue rather than optimisation — which is why the structure of the contract matters before control is even introduced.
See how Percee works →