East Midlands Schools Collaboration On Resource Efficiency GOEM 31 st March 2011

1. East Midlands Schools Collaboration On Resource Efficiency GOEM 31st March 2011

2. WelcomeAnne GayferProgramme Manager (Climate Change, LEQ & Waste Management)

3. East Midlands Schools Collaboration On Resource Efficiency SCoRE Dan Fernbank Public Sector Project Manager 31st March 2011

4. EM SCoRE participants

5. East Midland Schools • 9 authorities • 2,260 schools • Approx 750,000 pupils Source: DCSF 2009 School Census, Edubase 2011

6. The story so far… • Jul – Changing Climate Week schools workshop • Nov – Nottingham workshop • Dec - Finalised proposal • Expressions of interest – all 9 authorities • Feb – Briar & SE2 appointed programme advisors • Mar – kick off meetings, today’s workshop

7. Agenda

8. Aims of SCoRE programme • Develop capability of LA’s and schools to take action on carbon & resource efficiency • Carbon is key focus, but wider resource efficiency too • LA’s define and realise own carbon reduction outcomes • Practical, well-structured initiatives & plans • Pilot initiatives and whole schools estate delivery plan • Establish wide stakeholder support for action • Collaborative & bespoke support • Make business case for action • Commence rollout of support

9. Why take action? • £543m building energy in England’s schools • ~ total school emissions approx7mtCO2 • 21% of public sector building emissions • Large proportion of local authority CO2emissions • Great opportunity to save money • CRC costs incurred by LA’s • Energy savings in schools • Link to curriculum • Engage next generation • Community leadership • Improved environment for study

10. EM SCoRE Team • Programme Direction • Direct the programme • Monitor progress of programme • Ensure authorities’ needs met • Ensure quality expectations met • Draw on previous CT experience • Programme Advisor Team • Technical support • Change Management support • Tool/template support • Workshop facilitation/delivery • On-site/email/phone support

11. Key elements for success • Whole school approach: • Engage key stakeholder groups • Maximise behavioural change opportunities • Explore range of technical opportunities • Practical support and resource development • Communication & marketing of programme initiatives • Clearly defined strategy: • Quantified CO2 & £ savings • Clear target for reduction (inc baseline) • Strong business case for action • Good governance; key stakeholder support • Plan signed off at senior level

12. National programme • Collaborative Low Carbon Schools Service • Launch late May • Carbon only • Less bespoke/hands on support • Designed to work for large audience • Potential to learn/share experience across programmes; EM setting the pace • Keen to learn from you

13. SCoRE Overview & Programme Advisor Team Ed Horgan Programme Director

14. East Midlands – 9 LAs

15. East Midlands Schools • 2,260 Schools • £51M Annual Energy Costs • 345,000 tCO2 emissions Equivalent: 828,000 Barrels Oil

16. Realisation of Carbon Issue • Dependence on Fossil Fuels Guzzling 5.5 million barrels oil/hr • Sterile – Unseen combustion

17. Buncefield Oil Terminal Fire • Oil release & vapour cloud ignition • Explosion heard 160km away • 300,000 Barrels Oil

18. Climate Change News Australia Floods & Hurricanes South America Floods Britain Snow Fall

19. Volatile Energy Costs

20. Birmingham City CouncilCarbon Trust Case Study

21. BCC Programme • Pilot School Surveys • Fast track case studies • Schools Performance Analyses • Co-ordinated Approach • Workshops – Action Plan • Progress & Support Conference

22. Birmingham City Schools Annual Schools Energy Costs £ 10M Schools Carbon Emissions 88600 tCO2

23. Birmingham City Council Schools £/Pupil

24. Birmingham City CouncilDEC Performance

25. Birmingham City CouncilkW Power at night

26. BCC Case Study

27. BCC Schools Quick Wins • Primary & Secondary • Annual Saving • £1,118,000 • 7,235 tCO2 • CRC Carbon tax @ £12/tCO2 • Additional saving £86,800

28. Primary Schools (typical) Annual Energy Cost £18,000 (Range £7k to £40k) Quick Win Saving £1,580 CRC Carbon Saving £120 Total Saving £1,700 Quick Win Funding £500 (pbp 4 months) Investment Measures Saving £3,500 CRC Carbon Saving £265 Total Saving £3,765 Investment Measures Funding £12,500 (pbp 3.3 years) Overall Opportunity: Saving £5,465, Investment £13,000 (pbp 2.4 years)

29. SCoRE Advisors • Ed Horgan Programme Director • Loraine Moore Programme Administrator • Cliff Bassett Programme Manager • Heather Stevenson Project Advisor (Leicester, Leicestershire, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire) • Leigh-Anne Thorpe Project Advisor (Derby, Derbyshire, Lincolnshire, Northants, Rutland) • Nick Eaves Project Advisor • John Wade Project Advisor

30. Specialist Communication & Change Managers • Liz Warren Director Communication Specialist • Rachael Mills Director Sustainability Co-ordination Specialist

31. About SE2 • Trusted delivery • Established in 2004 • Successful project delivery at local, regional and national level • Support to DCSF / DfE developing a schools carbon management strategy • A breath of fresh air • Tackling climate change: guidance for secondary schools • Climate change funding for schools • Bringing people together • Helping different teams from local authorities progress together • Engaging stakeholders – from community groups to senior policymakers • Creative spark • Communicating with schools, communities, householders, LAs • Technical knowledge; creative approaches

32. About SE2 • Rachael Mills • Stakeholder engagement for Carbon Trust, DECC, Climate Clinic • Facilitating within and between LAs • Engagement and champions programmes • Liz Warren • 3 years’ working with DCSF/DfE • Communications consultant to EST, the RIBA and the Institute for Sustainability • Community outreach projects on energy efficiency and sustainable travel

33. QuizSchools Carbon Quiz

34. Development Workshops: Feedback Cliff Bassett

35. Diverse School Portfolios • 20 - 420 schools • 3,000 - 60,000 tonnes CO2/yr • Urban and rural • Diverse fuel types, including emerging renewables

36. Composition of your project teams • Climate Change/Carbon: 5 Authorities • Energy: 4 Authorities • Sustainability/Environment: 3 Authorities • School advisers: 2 Authorities • Property Services: 2 Authorities • Waste advisers: 1 Authority • CYPS: 1 Authority

37. Some Mixed Opinions • CRC – who pays? • FITs – love or hate? • Pilot school selection • Just supportive schools? • Just poor performers? • Just secondary schools? • A mix? • Extent of centralised support

38. Much Common Ground • Most schools on central energy supply contracts • Understanding of carbon footprint (building energy only) • Waste and transport support provided • Most have PFI schools – not for SCoRE • DECs seen by schools as ‘necessary evil’ • Good curriculum resources • Fundamental SCoRE objectives • Demonstrating a successful schools approach • Creating a legacy (resource development)

39. Resource Development 1Co-ordination and Communication Strategy • Generally wide-ranging support is (or should), be available to schools • Not all stakeholders on-board (some ‘blockers’) • Access to key schools staff can be poor • Much reliance on ‘one-to-one’ communications • General desire to develop an effective co-ordinated approach to delivery and communication

40. Resource Development 2AMR Development • AMR roll-out generally well advanced • Most should be complete by July • Pro-active use of existing HHD is patchy • Proposed use by schools is variable • Widespread desire to have guidance on use (and maximising benefit of), newly available AMR data • LA Climate Change teams • Individual schools

41. Resource Development 3Business Case & Selling to Schools • Receptiveness of Governors, Head Teachers and Bursars is variable • Some ‘blocking’ (e.g. Salix) • Limited use of performance analysis to demonstrate savings potential • General desire to increase schools buy-in

42. Resource Development 4Practical Whole School Savings • All LAs recognise importance of ‘behavioural change’ opportunities • Whole school approach important (pupils and staff) • Some notable successes, but much more to go at • Little use of data • General desire to develop approach, to maximise savings and increase persistence.

43. Resource Development 5Eco-schools Enhancement • Most LAs support Eco-schools (some strongly) • Seen as providing a good foundation • Increasing emphasis on energy • Widespread desire to maximise the uptake and benefits of Eco-schools participation

44. Resource Development 6Invest to Save Opportunities • Most LAs operating Salix revolving funds (plus some others) • Mixed uptake in schools • General shortage of new schemes • Some historical issues with accurate quantification of savings/costs • Widespread desire to improve uptake of Salix in schools (identification, quantification, implementation)

45. Resource Development 7Energy Training • 100% concern re. caretaker training on heating controls • Some LA sustainability staff would benefit from energy skills training • General desire to tackle heating control (and other training issues)

46. Resource Development 8Renewable Energy Guidance • Variable LA attitude to FITs and other renewables • General acknowledgement that there are issues that need to be managed effectively • Widespread desire to crystallise LA position and produce clear guidance (some have done)

47. Resource Development 9LA Schools CMP Toolkit • Recognition that whatever approach is developed will need to be formalised and recorded in order to provide persistence • Business case required to ensure on-going LA financing and other resourcing • Need to encapsulate in concise Schools Carbon Management Plan

48. Conclusion • Diverse LAs, with diverse immediate priorities • Shared overall objectives • Expertise already exists in many areas • Some areas are universally problematic • Opportunities for collaborative working

49. SCoRE Programme Design

50. SCoRE Programme Design • Common objectives • Range of interests, advancement ideas & plans • Collaboration – development/learning • Sharing pilots & successes • Schools CM plan – school carbon service • Flexible approach - Delivery variations - Timescale issues • Flexible support