Keep this fictional file separate from real outcomes

All schools, providers, rates, tax percentages, recovery assumptions and outcomes are fictional teaching examples. Annual arithmetic uses an illustrative 365-day period, not a quotation, tax classification or price forecast. Rates include all assumed variable supply charges for the example; actual offers must identify every relevant item. Embedded commission is already in the unit rate and must not be added twice. Direct advisory fees are separate. A refundable deposit affects cash held, not energy expense. Each case prices one illustrative electricity requirement. Other fuels and supplies with different tax treatment need their own comparison.

The cost comparison models one illustrative electricity requirement. Other fuels or separately taxed supplies need their own comparison; this is not a combined whole-estate electricity and gas bill.

Example Boarding and Day School is an invented charitable company with separate trading activity. It teaches day and boarding pupils and operates catering, laundry, a pool and holiday lettings. The illustrative annual model covers 600,000 kWh over 365 days. Its fictional 20% supply VAT, 20% service VAT and 65% recovery are arithmetic inputs, not a conclusion about boarding relief or the actual activities of a school.

Map the campus before choosing a term

The bursar asks estates staff for an operating calendar, meter map and explanation of year-round loads. Occupied boarding houses need suitable living conditions when classrooms are quieter. The pool, catering and holiday activities have their own hours. A fall in pupil numbers cannot simply be applied as the same percentage reduction in site energy.

The school records a possible building-use change and asks how quickly it might affect consumption. No capital project saving is inserted without a supported estimate and delivery date. The requirement identifies the legal customer, current supply position, tax reviewer and the people who will approve and manage any agreement. The group or trading arrangements need their own check.

Define the two offers and the service

The appointed lead adviser requests written responses against one requirement and discloses its supplier coverage. A offers 24.80p/kWh, an £8.00 daily standing charge and a £1,200.00 direct annual adviser fee over 24 months. B offers 24.30p/kWh, £10.00 per day and a £1,600.00 direct fee over 36 months.

The unit rates already include embedded uplifts of 0.25p/kWh and 0.35p/kWh. At baseline demand those represent £1,500.00 and £2,100.00 annually. Adding the direct fee gives £2,700.00 and £3,700.00 in disclosed annual remuneration before the example tax treatment. The service brief asks for invoice checks, site consultation, exception investigation and a termly review, with competent delivery and additional charges stated.

Compare the baseline without treating it as a decision

This is a common annual comparison under the stated demand and tax assumptions. Actual public relief eligibility, recovery, all charges and quotation validity remain to be confirmed. A 24-month option and a 36-month option also carry different commitments and future renewal exposure.

Apply the changed demand test

The baseline arithmetic gives B a lower net annual economic cost by £2,000.90. A separate 25% reduction test uses 450,000 kWh. It gives A a net annual arithmetic cost of £123,820.40 and B £122,622.00 before any consequence of the volume clauses.

The fictional A clause accepts a 20% aggregate reduction before review; B accepts 10% before possible adjustment. A 25% reduction exceeds both bands. The example has no reliable adjustment price, so neither scenario total is a complete contractual cost. The school records that cost as unknown and requests written supplier answers. It must not treat an unpriced adjustment as zero or describe A as automatically suitable.

Give the governors an honest recommendation

The specimen paper records a provisional preference for further assessment rather than unconditional acceptance. B has the lower calculated annual cost at baseline, but the evidence does not yet establish the cost of the expected demand change. A has a shorter term and a wider fictional review band, but those features do not resolve the 25% test. Both options remain visible.

The board needs a clear explanation of the assumptions, the refundable £5,000.00 deposit required by B, the full-term service charges and what happens when a building or legal customer changes. It can defer the decision, revise the requirement or request an appropriate written solution. The exercise is useful because it reveals what is not yet known before the school commits.

Plan a service that protects the campus

A site consultation should produce checked findings, actions, costs, responsibilities and a review date. Reduction measures must preserve suitable teaching, boarding, bathing and care conditions. Pool and hot-water operations require competent staff and appropriate safety controls. A broker appointment alone is not evidence of that technical capability.

The mobilisation plan names the first-invoice reviewer and sets the charge, meter and tax checks. Those are planned checks, not completed results. Later reviews will separate changed tariffs, tax, bill corrections and actual reduced kWh, with occupancy and weather explained. No saving or procurement approval is claimed by this fictional file.