Start with the actual published findings

DfE's 12 June 2026 report compares schools' actual 2024/25 incumbent costs with estimated Energy for Schools costs for the same period and consumption. The table reports medians, not guaranteed outcomes.

Read the result with its boundaries

The sample was self-selecting and covered a small part of the school estate. Data were supplied by schools; the underlying incumbent costs and basket prices are unpublished. Some incumbent arrangements were cheaper. The results therefore describe a retrospective model for participating state-funded schools, without establishing future savings or an independent-school expectation. Electricity and gas medians should not be added into a claimed typical combined saving.

Use this evidence to identify what your school should investigate. Examine the incumbent arrangement and the alternative against the same requirement, with equal scrutiny of cost, service and risk.

Keep historical and forward evidence in separate columns

A historical benchmark asks what another arrangement might have cost during a completed period. A forward supplier quotation states terms for future delivery, usually within a defined acceptance window. A variable arrangement may require assumptions about future prices. Labelling these differences prevents a polished spreadsheet from presenting unlike evidence as equally certain.

Build a comparison register with the date received, delivery period, information source and status of each figure: actual, firm quotation, indicative price or scenario. Keep the original document and its assumptions. Do not manufacture a future fixed price for a variable arrangement simply to fill a blank cell.

Price the same requirement, then explain what differs

Use the same meter portfolio and forecast demand across the options. Show annual and whole-term totals, with taxes and fees treated consistently. Identify which charges are included, separately billed, variable or unknown. If a commission uplift is already embedded in the supply price, disclose its estimated value without adding it again to the total.

Avoid comparing a low-cost year in a longer agreement with the whole of a shorter offer. Where durations differ, show each contractual commitment and the assumptions needed for a common assessment horizon. Future renewal prices remain uncertain. A common horizon improves explanation; it does not make that uncertainty disappear.

Make the assessment more useful than a ranking

Create an exception list beside the cost table. Include a restricted supplier panel, weak exit rights, exposure to changing charges, uncertain consumption and a service that ends at signature. Describe the practical consequence of each exception and the person responsible for resolving it.

For academy trusts taking an alternative to approved energy options, DfE's implementation guidance identifies four records: comparison with one or more approved deals; written evaluation of price, terms, service and risk; a recommendation with the governance decision; and the SRMSAC declaration with evidence. Other schools can adapt the structure to their own governance requirements without assuming that the academy declaration also applies to them.

Stress-test the recommendation

These are editorial test questions, not predictions. Set assumptions with finance and estates colleagues, preserve the results and state which uncertainties remain material. The board should be able to see why the preferred option remains acceptable under plausible adverse conditions, or why further work is necessary.

• Demand changes: what happens if consumption falls following efficiency work or rises after electrification?
• Price and charges change: which elements move, and what budget pressure follows?
• The estate changes: can a site be added, closed or transferred, and at what cost?
• Service disappoints: who investigates bills, owns the data and escalates an unresolved issue?

Record the reasons for the recommendation

A useful recommendation explains the school's requirement, the options considered, the reasons for the choice and the conditions of approval. State whether the claimed benefit is an estimated cost difference, an agreed service improvement or an evidenced recovery. Give each measure a review date. This turns benchmarking into a record of judgement rather than an attractive number detached from the purchase.