How Seenra ranks energy supplier offers.
Every offer on Seenra is scored on three inputs and screened against eight exclusion rules. Commission tier is not a ranking input. We publish the formula, the weightings, the exclusions, and the changelog so you can audit the way we sort what you see.
Last reviewed May 1, 2026 by Harry Parker, Energy Consultant at Seenra Inc, with review by the editorial desk.
Ranking pipeline
LiveEvery offer goes through the same pipeline: three weighted inputs, eight exclusions, then ranked. Commission tier is never an input.
3
Ranking inputs
8
Exclusion rules
0
Commission ranking weight
Quarterly
Confidence refresh
Rate × term × confidence — these are the only inputs.
- 50%
Rate
Locked supply rate per kWh (or therm) plus any fixed monthly fee, normalised against the household or commercial buyer's average usage profile. We compute the all-in cents-per-kWh number, not the headline rate.
- 30%
Term
Contract length in months. Longer terms protect through more winters and capacity-period peaks, but cost optionality if you move or your load profile changes. We weight against the buyer-stated planning window.
- 20%
Confidence
A 0–1 reliability score per supplier built from PUC complaint filings, BBB rating, billing-error rate from our own customer base, time in market, and licensing standing in the buyer's state.
Why we publish this
Most supplier-comparison sites you can find on Google are commission-driven. The site ranks the supplier that pays the most, the supplier you click, the supplier whose lead converts the cleanest. That is fine for a coupon site; it is not fine when the buyer is locking the supply line of their electricity bill for 24 months. Energy is YMYL — your money or your life — and the FTC, the state PUCs, and Google all treat it that way.
We publish the methodology because we think it should be auditable. If our top-ranked offer in your ZIP is not the cheapest, the page should tell you why. If a supplier just settled an enforcement action, the page should not list them at the top regardless of rate. The buyer should be able to read the rule book and check our work.
How rate is calculated
Rate is the all-in cents-per-kWh you pay for supply, not the headline rate the supplier advertises. We add any fixed monthly fee, normalise it across the buyer's stated 12-month usage average, and convert into a single number per offer. If a plan has a $9.99 monthly fee and a 7.4 ¢/kWh headline rate, a 1,000 kWh/month household sees an effective rate of 8.4 ¢/kWh; a 500 kWh household sees 9.4 ¢/kWh. We rank by the effective number, not the headline, and the quote always shows both so the buyer can verify.
How term is weighted
Term is contract length in months — typically 12, 24, 36, or 48. Longer terms generally score higher because they protect through more winters and PJM capacity-period peaks. The weighting drops if the buyer states a short planning window — for example, a renter on a 12-month lease should not receive a 48-month plan as the top recommendation, even if the 48-month rate is lower. We collect the planning window in the wizard and weight against it.
How confidence is computed
Confidence is a 0–1 reliability score that combines five inputs: PUC complaint filings in the buyer's state (40% of the confidence score), BBB rating (15%), Seenra-internal billing-error rate over the trailing 6 months (20%), time in market (10%), and licensing standing including any open enforcement actions (15%). The data sources are public for everything except the internal billing-error rate; we publish that rate in aggregate, by quarter, on a forthcoming /transparency page.
Eight exclusions — offers we will not show you, regardless of rate
The ranking formula handles ordering. The exclusion matrix handles existence. If an offer hits any of these eight rules, it is not surfaced — even if it is the cheapest offer in your ZIP. Buyers can request the full unfiltered list via [email protected] if they want to see what we screened out.
| Exclusion | Rule | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Teaser-to-variable | Any plan with a fixed introductory rate that auto-rolls to variable. | The whole point of locking is to remove rate variability. Teaser-rate plans hide the variable phase in the contract — buyers regret these in month 7. |
| High early-termination fees | ETF greater than $250 on residential, or greater than 3 months of estimated usage on commercial. | Excessive ETFs functionally lock buyers into a bad contract if rates fall. We screen for proportional ETFs only. |
| Bundle-only | Plans only available bundled with non-energy products (insurance, roadside assistance, security). | Bundles obscure the real per-kWh cost and make ranking against pure-supply plans unreliable. |
| Negative-option auto-renewal | Auto-renews into a variable rate without a 30-day window of explicit consent. | Auto-renewal into variable defeats the lock. Buyers should renew on a calendar, not be flipped silently. |
| Time-of-use without disclosure | TOU rate plans without published peak/off-peak windows and seasonal definitions. | TOU is a real strategy for some buyers but it requires transparent windows. Hidden TOU is a red flag. |
| Unlicensed in market | Suppliers without an active license posted on the state PUC docket on the day of ranking. | Non-trivial. We refuse to surface a supplier whose license is suspended, even if the rate is competitive. |
| Recent enforcement actions | Suppliers with an open PUC enforcement action or a settled action within 90 days. | A 90-day cooling window after settlement gives buyers protection from operational disarray that often follows enforcement. |
| Capacity-pass-through hidden | Plans that pass through capacity charges without disclosure on the bill. | In PJM territory especially, capacity drives 15–20% of the bill in peak years. Hiding it makes the supply line incomparable. |
Methodology changelog
Every change to the formula, the weightings, or the exclusion set is dated and logged here. We treat this changelog as a public commitment — if a change is not recorded, it did not happen.
- 2026-04-15
Confidence weight raised from 15% to 20% after a year of supplier-reliability data showed it was the strongest predictor of buyer satisfaction at month 12.
- 2026-02-08
Added "Recent enforcement actions" exclusion after the Q1 2026 PJM cap-market enforcement wave. Cooling window set at 90 days.
- 2026-01-04
Term weight reduced from 35% to 30% after buyer surveys showed predictability of rate matters more than length of lock at the household tier.
- 2025-11-22
Initial ranking formula published. Rate 55%, Term 30%, Confidence 15%. Commission tier excluded as a ranking input from day one.
Common questions
Quick answers from the editorial desk
Does the supplier who pays Seenra the most get ranked first?
How often is the ranking refreshed?
Why don't you show me the cheapest possible rate first?
Can I see the data behind your confidence scores?
Does the methodology apply to commercial as well as residential?
What happens if a supplier disputes their confidence score?
Sources: Public Utility Commission complaint dockets across all 51 US deregulated and regulated jurisdictions; Better Business Bureau supplier ratings; Seenra customer-base billing-error rate (2025–2026); PJM and ERCOT capacity auction filings; state-level broker licensing dockets. Numbers shown on rate quotes are estimates and never guaranteed.
Audit our work, then lock the rate.
The methodology is public; the offers are real; the savings are estimated, never guaranteed.