Renewal can arrive before the project decision

The energy contract is approaching renewal, while the estate plan is still taking shape. Governors may support replacing the heating system or reducing electricity use, but surveys, funding or approvals remain unresolved. Finance needs a supply agreement before those questions are settled. The school has to make a commitment using the evidence it has, while preserving a workable response to what may change.

A climate action plan gives those changes a common purpose. It does not make every proposal a funded project or a dependable consumption forecast. DfE’s climate-planning guidance for England is non-statutory; its 3 November update refreshed support links and examples, rather than introducing a new energy-buying deadline. The practical connection is already in estate guidance: relevant climate actions belong alongside estate strategy and financial planning.

Our judgement is that renewal should test whether those plans can coexist with the proposed contract. It is also an opportunity to discover whether the contract changes the case for the project itself.

Give the forecast a decision status

Last year’s bills remain evidence of last year’s operation. Alongside them, identify each material change by its climate or estate-plan reference, affected meters, responsible person and expected date. Distinguish a proposal awaiting appraisal from an approved project, and identify whether funding and other dependencies are secured. An intended commissioning date needs its supporting evidence.

Ask the suitably competent person responsible for the technical assessment to explain the net electricity and gas requirement. Measures can interact: reductions affecting the same load should not simply be added together. Electrification may increase purchased electricity while reducing gas. Annual totals also need the relevant timing and demand profile, rather than an unexplained percentage adjustment.

The buying brief should retain credible cases for the project proceeding, arriving later or not proceeding during the supply term. These are decision scenarios, not predictions. Give suppliers the same dated requirement and name the school lead responsible for approving revisions.

Pay for the flexibility the school needs

A longer agreement can still be suitable where its terms accommodate those cases and the specified price certainty suits the budget. Ask the supplier to show what happens to the relevant meter, fuel, period or portfolio if demand changes. A broad reassurance about flexibility is less useful than the actual volume baseline, calculation, notice requirement and written change provision.

A nearer renewal or a short bridge, where available and lawfully procured, may give the school another decision point. It also brings repeat work, possible additional cost and earlier exposure to replacement prices. A flexible purchasing product introduces its own buying authority and remaining market exposure. None of these choices becomes preferable merely because a project is uncertain.

Compare the cost of workable change rights with the consequences of the less accommodating offer. If neither fits, the board may need to reconsider the project timetable or seek further terms. Record that choice explicitly. Quietly assuming the project will happen, or quietly postponing it to suit a cheap quote, hides a decision the school needs to own.

Send the supply terms back to the project appraisal

The exchange should run both ways. The project team supplies the forecast; procurement returns the charges that would actually change under each offer. Lower imports do not necessarily remove standing charges, separate data fees or a minimum-purchase obligation. Capacity charges and the timing of avoided imports may also matter. Use the relevant written terms and supported calculations.

That makes a difference to an investment appraisal. Valuing every avoided kilowatt-hour at the average whole-bill cost can attribute savings to charges the school will continue paying. Equally, a contractual shortfall or agreed change cost should not disappear between the energy comparison and the project paper. Identify the avoidable costs, continuing costs and unresolved amounts, keeping capital and revenue implications visible.

Return material differences to the person responsible for the project’s business case before commitment. Refresh the appraisal where necessary, including its adverse case. Our comparison model helps organise supply costs; it does not price every supplier’s volume formula or approve the separate investment. Use the solar programme’s appraisal guidance for solar project and PPA decisions.

Agree who resolves the disagreement

A useful energy adviser can translate the approved requirement into supplier questions and obtain written answers. It should not be assumed to validate engineering assumptions simply because it coordinates the procurement. Agree who confirms the technical forecast, who explains contractual consequences and who brings discrepancies back to the school.

Put that handoff in the service scope, with named outputs, dates, fees and any specialist input. Existing free climate-planning support may help the school organise its priorities; determine separately whether the question needs engineering, procurement, legal or accounting expertise. The school retains the decision, including whether the evidence is sufficient to proceed.

Approve the commitment the evidence supports

Keep supply approval and project approval distinct, with their dependencies visible across the linked decision papers. Academy trusts retain the applicable DfE-approved-route comparison and equivalent-value requirements for alternatives. Maintained schools need their actual LA arrangements and delegated authority. Independent schools use their relevant company or charity governance. Express relevant climate objectives in the requirement and assess them through the applicable buying process.

The recommendation should explain which agreement works under the credible project cases, what its flexibility costs and what returns to the project appraisal. For each unresolved condition, name the person responsible and the evidence needed to resolve it. If a material assumption changes before acceptance, use the agreed approval process for the revised offer.

Start with the energy data book, then carry the supplier’s response into the comparison and decision paper. Leaders can then authorise a supply commitment with a clear account of the project it accommodates, the costs that remain and the next decision that still needs to be made.