Broker, Consultant, or Direct?
Five routes to buying commercial energy, compared on who pays, who the incentive serves, and the size of buyer each one actually fits.
What is the difference between an energy broker and an energy consultant?
An energy broker is paid by the supplier on a transaction and is measured on the rate secured. An energy consultant is paid a fee by you and is measured on advice, including the advice not to transact. That single difference — who writes the cheque — drives everything else about the two models. A broker earns nothing if you decide to wait; a consultant earns the same either way.
For a straightforward supply renewal in a deregulated market, both routes generally reach a similar rate, and the broker route reaches it without a retainer. The consultant model earns its fee on large or complex portfolios — multi-country footprints, on-site generation, capital efficiency projects, regulated sustainability reporting — where the scope runs well past buying a commodity and where independence from supplier compensation is worth paying for directly.
- Broker paid by
- The winning supplier, via a rate adder
- Consultant paid by
- You, via retainer or project fee
- Broker suits
- Roughly $50k–$3M annual energy spend
- Consultant suits
- Complex portfolios; independence as a requirement
The five routes, compared
| Route | Who pays | Strength | Weakness | Best fit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Energy broker | Supplier, via a $0.001–$0.005/kWh adder | Competitive process with no direct cost; market timing expertise across many deals a year | Paid only when you transact, so the incentive is to transact | Most commercial buyers, roughly $50k–$3M a year in energy spend |
| Energy consultant | You, via retainer or project fee | Compensation independent of whether you buy; scope extends past the commodity | Real cost regardless of outcome; overkill for a single-site renewal | Large or complex portfolios, sustainability mandates, capital projects |
| Direct to supplier | Nobody — the adder is removed | No intermediary fee in the rate; direct relationship with the supplier | The supplier knows no comparison is running and prices for that | Buyers who will genuinely run their own multi-supplier RFP |
| In-house energy manager | You, as salary | Full control, full information, no external incentive at all | Fixed cost; needs enough deal volume to keep expertise current | Above roughly $2–3M in annual energy spend |
| Reverse auction platform | Usually a platform fee or supplier adder | Real-time competitive tension; excellent price transparency | Optimizes only the variable on screen — usually price on a fixed product | Well-specified straightforward loads where the product is already decided |
Fee ranges reflect prevailing U.S. commercial market practice as of 2026 and vary by market, load size and contract term. The spend thresholds are rules of thumb for sizing the decision, not hard cutoffs.
The question underneath the question
Most buyers framing this as "broker or consultant" are really asking something narrower: can I trust advice from someone the supplier pays? It is a fair question and it has a concrete answer rather than a reassuring one.
The supplier-paid model creates one specific, identifiable conflict: the intermediary earns nothing unless you sign. That conflict is manageable, and the thing that manages it is a flat fee disclosed in writing and identical across every supplier bidding. Under those terms the broker's incentive is to close a deal, but they are indifferent to which supplier wins — so the competitive process still works in your favor, and the residual conflict is limited to timing.
The version that does not work is a fee that varies by supplier. There the intermediary has a reason to steer, the auction becomes theatre, and you would have been better off going direct. This is why fee disclosure is the first question on the broker selection checklist and not the fifth.
Where each route actually breaks down
Going direct
The logic is intuitive — remove the middleman, remove the fee — and it is usually wrong for the same reason that getting one contractor quote is usually wrong. The adder you removed was $0.001–$0.005 per kWh. The competitive spread you also removed routinely exceeds $0.01 per kWh between the best and worst bid on the same load, on the same day. Removing the fee and the competition together is a net loss most of the time.
It becomes correct when you will actually run a real RFP: multiple suppliers, same specification, same day, terms normalized for comparison. Do that and you have not gone direct, you have moved the process in-house — which is a legitimate and often excellent choice.
Reverse auctions
The mechanism works. Suppliers bidding against each other in real time compress price, and watching it happen is more transparent than any bid matrix. The limitation is scope: the auction optimizes whatever variable it was given, which is nearly always price on a fixed term. It has no view on whether a block-and-index structure would suit your load better than the fixed product being auctioned, whether the winning bidder's credit requirements work for you, or whether this month is a good month to be buying at all.
In-house
The strongest option once the spend supports it, and the weakest just below that line. An energy manager handling procurement four times a year alongside facilities work is not maintaining current market expertise — and the market prices infrequent, unrepresented buyers exactly as you would expect.
Consultants
The retainer buys genuine independence, and for some organizations that is worth the cost on governance grounds alone. It is poor value for a single-site commercial buyer doing a routine renewal, where the fee can exceed the difference between a good outcome and an excellent one.
A decision rule
- Under ~$50,000/year in energy spend: handle it yourself. Get two or three quotes at renewal and do not roll onto a holdover rate. The absolute savings will not justify anyone's involvement.
- ~$50,000–$3M/year, no in-house expertise: a broker with a disclosed flat fee is the highest-return option. This is the large majority of commercial buyers.
- Above ~$3M/year, or multi-site and complex: in-house capability, with a broker or consultant for market execution.
- Independence is a governance requirement — public sector, regulated entity, board mandate — : a fee-based consultant, because the compensation structure is the deliverable.
- Regulated market or municipal utility: none of the above changes your supply price, because there is no supply to bid. Look at tariff classification, demand charges and bill recovery instead.
Which one is Inertia Resources?
A broker, on the supplier-paid model described above, with a flat fee disclosed in writing before signing and held constant across every supplier bidding. We serve the $50,000–$3M band the decision rule points at: 4,000+ commercial clients across 16 deregulated states since 2017.
If the rule above points somewhere else for your situation, it points somewhere else — we would rather say that than take on an engagement that cannot produce a result. The cases where we are not the right answer are listed explicitly.
Common questions about energy procurement routes
What is the difference between an energy broker and an energy consultant?
An energy broker is paid by the supplier on a transaction and is measured on the rate secured. An energy consultant is paid a fee by the client and is measured on advice, which may include advice not to transact at all. The practical difference is where the incentive sits: a broker earns nothing if you do not sign, while a consultant earns the same whether you sign or wait. For a straightforward supply renewal both routes usually produce a similar rate; the consultant model earns its retainer on large, complex or multi-country portfolios where the scope extends past procurement into efficiency capital, on-site generation and sustainability reporting.
Is it cheaper to go direct to an energy supplier?
Usually not, and the reason is counterintuitive: going direct removes the broker fee from your rate but also removes the competition that was suppressing the rate underneath it. A supplier quoting an unrepresented buyer knows there is no comparison being run and prices accordingly. The broker adder is typically $0.001 to $0.005 per kWh, while the spread between the best and worst bid in a competitive process routinely exceeds $0.01 per kWh. Going direct makes sense when you have the internal capability to run your own multi-supplier RFP — in which case you are not really going direct, you are running the process in-house.
What is a reverse auction platform and should I use one?
A reverse auction platform puts your load in front of multiple suppliers who bid against each other in real time on a screen. The mechanism is genuinely effective at compressing price on a well-specified, straightforward load, and the transparency is excellent. Its weakness is that the auction optimizes the single variable it is given — usually price for a fixed term — and cannot weigh the things that are not on the screen: whether a block-and-index structure would suit your load better than the fixed product being auctioned, whether the cheapest bidder has the credit terms you need, or whether you should be buying at all this month. It is a strong tool for a buyer who already knows exactly what product they want.
When should energy procurement be handled in-house?
When your energy spend justifies a dedicated person and your load is large enough that suppliers will engage with you directly. In practice that tends to start somewhere above $2–3 million in annual energy spend, where a full-time energy manager costs less than the aggregate fees an intermediary would earn and where you have enough transactions each year to keep genuine market expertise current. Below that, the person doing energy buying is doing it a few times a year alongside another job, which is exactly the situation where the market prices you badly.
Do brokers and consultants get access to different prices?
No. Suppliers do not maintain a secret price tier for one intermediary over another; the wholesale cost, capacity and transmission components are the same inputs for everyone. What differs is the process wrapped around them — how many suppliers are asked, whether they bid simultaneously on the same specification, how the load is presented, and how well the contract terms are negotiated after the headline rate is agreed. Anyone claiming exclusive access to rates unavailable elsewhere is describing a commission arrangement, not a price advantage.
Can I use a broker and still negotiate the contract myself?
Yes, and on large contracts it is often the right split. A broker can run the competitive process, assemble the bid matrix and normalize the offers for comparison, while your counsel handles the terms and conditions — early termination, material change clauses, bandwidth tolerances and credit provisions. The rate is only part of the exposure; the clauses determine what happens when your usage changes or you sell a site.
Not sure which route fits?
Send twelve months of bills. We will tell you your load factor, what the market should be offering for that profile, and which of the five routes above makes sense for your spend — including when the answer is not us.