A month into the new requirement

A month after England’s new Academy Trust Handbook took effect on 1 October 2026, the next energy renewal has an explicit reference point. Trusts must use Energy for Schools or a DfE-approved energy deal unless an alternative agreement of equivalent value for money has been sourced. Paragraph 2.29 applies on renewal. This School Connection analysis, prepared on 2 November, examines what that requirement means for decisions being made from October onwards.

The exception preserves a meaningful choice. A trust exercising that choice needs to explain it against the approved-route baseline. Reading either half alone produces an incomplete account: the trust cannot treat an alternative as prohibited, or treat the existence of a broker recommendation as sufficient justification.

Our assessment is that this makes the quality of the decision record central to the purchase. It gives trustees a more precise question to ask of the finance team and its advisers: what evidence establishes that this arrangement is suitable, lawfully procured and at least equivalent in value? A collection of quotations becomes useful when the answer connects them.

For a trust with time remaining on its present agreement, the immediate task is preparation. DfE does not expect trusts to exit existing contracts. It recommends planning and benchmarking at least twelve months before expiry. That makes the renewal calendar relevant now: the opportunity to compare routes can narrow if data collection, approvals and market engagement are left until an offer is about to expire.

The difficult comparison is between different promises

Consider a fictional eight-school trust choosing between a contract fixing specified charges and an arrangement that purchases energy over time. Their central cost estimates are close. The fixed offer is easier to explain as a known rate, while the variable arrangement requires a view of what remains exposed. Different billing support, fees and volume conditions complicate the comparison further.

Putting the two totals in neighbouring spreadsheet cells does not eliminate those differences. Nor does choosing the lower estimate explain whether its uncertainty is affordable. The useful comparison shows what each figure assumes and what happens if the school estate or charges change. A heat-pump project, a joining academy or lower imports after solar installation can make the consumption forecast an important contractual question.

DfE’s implementation material expressly includes terms, service and risk alongside price. Its Energy for Schools benchmark uses historical bills, while the arrangement’s future price is variable. That requires an honest account of what the evidence can establish. A historical comparison can inform the judgement. Presenting the figures in greater detail cannot turn it into a firm future quotation.

The board retains the decision, even when it buys expertise

The wider Handbook requirements sit beside the energy paragraph: value for money, internal delegations, competitive procurement, due diligence and professional input where appropriate. An adviser can contribute technical knowledge and carry out agreed tasks. The trust still needs to understand what has been done and retain evidence it can retrieve.

This is where the adviser’s role can become more substantial. A clear specification, a defensible comparison and an explanation of excluded charges can save a school team from making decisions on incomplete information. Those services should appear as deliverables that the trust can examine. Assurance without the underlying work leaves trustees with little to challenge.

The timing also belongs in the governance discussion. An offer expiring this afternoon is a reason to have settled authority and process in advance. It does not settle procurement requirements. If the proposed buying method cannot accommodate approval and the applicable award process, the difficulty must be addressed in the design of the exercise. Passing pressure down to a business manager will not resolve it.

One accountable adviser can organise the evidence

Using a single TPI for an agreed exercise is one way to coordinate the work. It can give the school a consistent data pack, a named point of responsibility and one explanation of the supplier response. This is an operating option to assess against the team’s capacity and other buying routes. The Handbook does not make a broker compulsory, and an adviser’s involvement does not itself establish procurement compliance.

The trust needs coordination while retaining control of the commitment. A TPI should be able to state which suppliers it can approach, how it is paid and what it will deliver. The trust should retain its approval rights and the evidence needed to examine the recommendation. Where its services extend into energy management, their scope and cost need to be visible in the comparison.

Independent checking remains useful within that arrangement. DfE’s minimum-standard questions recommend another supplier quotation even where a broker supplies several offers. That can be built into the brief without asking competing brokers to run overlapping exercises. The academy’s relevant approved-route comparison also remains necessary for an alternative-deal assessment.

The result should make the board’s decision easier to understand. A trustee can ask why suppliers were absent, what an exclusion could cost and whether the proposed service meets a need the trust has actually identified. The strength of the relationship is the adviser’s ability to answer those questions with work the trust can inspect.

An approval paper should become a management record

DfE identifies the evidence expected for an alternative: comparison with an approved deal, written evaluation, recommendation and governance decision, and supporting SRMSAC material. The recommendation should therefore explain what the trust expects to receive after award. If bill validation or consumption reporting helped justify the selection, the contract and review arrangements should make that service visible.

The fictional trust’s first review could then ask whether invoices match the agreement, whether exceptions have been resolved and whether the promised reports identify useful actions. A good decision may still encounter operational problems. Recording them enables the trust to distinguish the quality of the original judgement from the supplier’s or adviser’s subsequent performance.

Maintained and independent schools have different governance routes, so they should not inherit an academy declaration simply by reading the same programme. The broader lesson is transferable: record the reasons at the point when alternatives and uncertainties are being examined. Start with the academy alternative-deal guide and its four-part evidence structure. That turns October’s requirement into an organised buying decision whose explanation remains usable after the quotation has expired.