School energy bills: the pressure, the choices and what leaders can control

The pressure is real. The dates matter.

DfE’s April 2025 parliamentary answer records average annual energy expenditure of £38,214 for primary schools and £190,897 for secondary schools in 2023/24. Both were substantially above 2021/22. These are cash expenditure averages, not electricity unit prices. [1]

School Connection calculated the changes as (later expenditure ÷ earlier expenditure − 1) × 100, rounded to one decimal. Maintained schools report to March; academies to August. Trust central-service energy costs are excluded. The averages do not follow an unchanged group of schools or isolate price from consumption. [1]

A forecast is a different kind of evidence

The March 2026 DfE costs note uses an energy-price forecast of +4.1% for 2024-25 and −5.1% for 2025-26, with significant uncertainty. Beyond 2025-26 its model uses the GDP deflator for energy as well as other inflation. These are modelling assumptions, not observed results or a forward electricity-price quote for a school. [2]

Energy sits inside a wider budget challenge

DfE’s 2024-25 maintained-school release reports 17.8% of schools in deficit, compared with 15.3% in 2023-24. It excludes academies and warns about changing school numbers. This establishes wider financial pressure; it does not identify energy as the cause of those deficits. [3]

ASCL’s September 2025 survey received 530 responses, mostly from mainstream secondary headteachers. Of respondents, 60% reported an in-year deficit, 71% increased class sizes and 49% reduced their curriculum offer over the previous year. The response rate was 17%. These are respondents’ reports of overall funding pressure, not national energy-attributed outcomes, and are not directly comparable with DfE’s revenue-balance measure. [4]

For governors, the useful question is how much avoidable expenditure can be removed while protecting safe, effective teaching. A percentage saving matters only when its cash value, delivery cost and retained obligations are understood.

What participating school leaders have said

These are public comments published by government, not interviews conducted by School Connection. All three examples concern the DfE/GBE funded programme. Their experiences are useful evidence, but do not establish a representative result for every school or a private-finance PPA.

The next step in developing these accounts is to obtain permission to use matched bills, actual generation, onsite consumption and the school’s explanation of the changes. Until then, attribution and limitations should travel with every figure.

What can we say about the latest 18 months?

At publication, an April 2025 to October 2026 view would include incomplete current billing periods. The sources reviewed do not establish one reliable school-wide percentage increase across that window. Annual expenditure returns, market price statistics and individual contract changes answer different questions. We will not join them into a fabricated 18-month index.

DESNZ’s non-domestic price tables, updated 29 September 2026, provide quarterly and annual prices by consumption band. They are useful market context, but cover non-domestic users beyond schools. Their tax treatment and size bands must be matched before comparison; they do not tell us what a particular school paid or will be offered. [8]

Build a defensible school-level comparison

Report both £ and kWh, then explain the change. “The bill fell” can mean lower demand, a cheaper tariff, solar displacement, a correction or a combination. For gas, heating demand and weather can matter materially. Any normalisation should state the method and preserve the unadjusted figures alongside it.

For a whole-estate claim, use consistent school coverage and reporting periods. An individual example should stay an individual example. This method would allow us to publish verified recent experience later without weakening the historical record now.

Three decisions to assess together

1. Understand and reduce avoidable demand

Start with metering, operating hours, controls, faults and the estate plan. Test measures against educational needs, ventilation, safeguarding and appropriate temperatures. A school should not make classrooms unsuitable to meet an energy target. Use competent support for technical changes and cost the work before assuming a net benefit.

Size solar against the demand the school expects after efficiency improvements. A design based on avoidable consumption can overstate how much generation the school will use.

2. Scrutinise the residual supply contract

DfE’s June 2026 Energy for Schools report compares incumbent bills with an estimated alternative cost for the same 2024-25 consumption and period. It reports the following median potential differences. [7]

The self-selecting sample covers a small share of the estate. Some schools’ incumbent costs were cheaper; future savings are not guaranteed. Monetary and percentage figures are separate reported medians, not a formula for estimating an individual bill. Gas and electricity samples differ, so the medians should not simply be added as one typical school’s combined saving. [7]

Ask for the full annual cost at expected consumption, applicable charges, renewal conditions and price-risk allocation. Check the current DfE procurement requirements for your setting. Procurement savings and solar savings cannot simply be added if they both use the same displaced electricity as their baseline.

3. Appraise solar against the school’s own position

For a PPA, compare the actual payment obligation with the grid cost avoided when solar serves school demand. Include retained charges, indexation, export rights, maintenance allocation and any school-funded works. Test lower demand and falling grid prices as well as favourable scenarios. A tariff described as cheaper today does not establish a guaranteed lifetime benefit.

Solar PV supplies electricity; it does not directly remove a gas bill. It does not cover every hour of school demand, and batteries or backup operation require their own technical and financial case. Consider roof works, lease obligations and future estate changes before committing.

The questions a board should be able to answer

Our editorial assessment is that the strongest solar proposal should stand up even when a school asks difficult questions about its baseline. Financial pressure makes rigorous comparison more valuable. It does not make an unsuitable project suitable.