41
Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust’s Energy Project A Headington Resident’s View Peter West July 2019 Revised 15/08/2019
Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust’s
Energy Project
A Headington Resident’s View
Peter West
July 2019
Revised 15/08/2019
Schedule of Revisions
1. Appendix 2 Added – Commissioning Publicity
2. Appendix 3 Added – 28/06/2019 - City Council Response
3. Appendix 4 Added – 12/07/2019 – IHEEM Response
4. Appendix 5 Added – 13/07/2019 – Cllr Brown / Trust / Vital Energi Response
5. Report format updated and issued as Final
6. Appendix 6 Added - 07/08/2019 OUH NHS Trust Report plus a minor addition to the last paragraph of the Introduction.
7. Appendix 7 Added – Formal Complaint e-mail to Trust
Pages re-numbered
Table of Contents Page
1 Objectives……………………………………………………………….4
2 Introduction ………………………………………………….…...4
3 Summary……………………………………………………………….5
4 Energy Usage………………………………………………………6
5 Costs…………………………………………………..…………..7
6 Tariffs…………………………………………………..…………..9
7 Carbon Emissions ………………………………………………………. 11
8 Design Philosophy……………………………………….…………. 14
9 Communications………………………………………………………….. 15
10 Conclusions ………………………………………………………………. 16
11 Recommendations……………………………………………….……..17
12. Appendix 1 – Trust Response to Draft Report …………………….….19
13. Appendix 2 – Commissioning Publicity………………………………...20
14. Appendix 3 – City Council Response …………..........................……..21
15. Appendix 4 – IHEEM Response. ……………………………….………..22
16. Appendix 5 – Vital Energi Response ……………………………..…..…23
17. Appendix 6 – OUH NHS Trust Report ………………………………...…25
18. Appendix 7 – Formal Complaint to Trust………………………………..27
1. Objectives
The objectives of this report are to provide independent feedback, on the funding, communications, and primarily, the implementation of the heating mains installation, which was a part of the of the Energy Project based on the John Radcliffe Hospital (JR) site, designed to serve both the John Radcliffe and Churchill Hospitals.
It is also intended that this report will verify, or refute, the claims made by the Oxford University Hospitals Foundation Trust (Trust) and Contractor (Vital Energi) that the project will reduce energy consumption, costs and carbon emissions from the respective sites, (see Appendix 2) whilst being able to be used by other residents affected by Trusts, or other organisations, to inform and help avoid pitfalls that may occur and to make recommendations to inform decision making on similar future projects.
2. Introduction
A series of markings on the pavements and roads around Headington, led to local residents asking what they were for. In brief, it transpired that the Trust had already embarked on a plant and equipment replacement project to replace its dilapidated engineering plant, equipment and associated controls, improve its energy usage and reduce carbon emissions. The markings were indicating the location of existing underground services on the proposed duct route. There were essentially three parts to the project;
2.1 Replace the principal heating and hot water plant, install energy reducing equipment e.g. low energy lighting, and improved energy controls on the JR site.
2.2 Replace the principal heating and hot water plant, install energy reducing equipment e.g. low energy lighting, and improved energy controls on the Churchill site.
2.3 Install a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant on the JR site to generate the bulk of the electricity, hot water for heating and the domestic hot water requirements on both the JR and Churchill hospital sites.
Headington residents were not particularly concerned about the work that had already started on the JR / Churchill sites on items 2.1 and 2.2, but very concerned about item 2.3 and the effects of digging a 2.2km * 1.5m * 1.2m depth trench to provide a duct for heating mains from the John Radcliffe to the Churchill Hospital, a High Voltage electrical cable, plus alarm / communication cabling into the interconnecting roads, all without formally, or even informally, consulting local residents.
The Trust has claimed total success for the project, and I understand that the claims are being ‘independently’ monitored by the Carbon Trust and Energy Fund to ensure that objectives are achieved, although I have not seen any information published by the Fund to date. However as a member of Headington Action, Chair of a local Headington Resident’s Association, and the Headington and Marston Community Forum, in addition to being a representative of a small group of residents from various other Resident’s Associations, who would be affected by the ‘duct’ proposals, it was felt that it would appropriate for me, on behalf of the Headington residents, to provide a resident’s view on whether the project achieved its’ objectives, particularly the installation of the heating mains, in reducing costs, energy usage and carbon emissions in a cost-effective manner. This report outlines my views, based solely on the energy and associated energy cost data provided by the Trust for the period 2012 – March 2019, plus formal and informal discussions and meetings with the Trust, local City and County Councillors, the contractor, representatives of the Headington residents and general publicity documents produced by Vital Energi as a result of the severe criticism occurring at the time.
Unfortunately, the Trust has not fully assisted me in undertaking this report and would only, and latterly with reluctance, provide the energy usage data and associated energy costs associated with the CHP plant. Freedom of Information requests have had to be made throughout the project for useful information and data, some of which have been refused.
(It should be noted that I am a retired Chartered Engineer with an Honours degree in Environmental Engineering and have worked on design, installation and project management of engineering projects with a wide range of organisations, including PFI, NHS, Local Authority, Consulting Engineers and Contractors, therefore I feel that I am eminently qualified to comment on the project.
A copy of this report was forwarded to the Trust’s Estate’s Department for comment prior to its’ issue. I attach their response as Appendix 1, without comment, Further appendices have been added to provide responses to the report, as appropriate.
3. Summary
This report outlines the background to the Trust’s Energy project that was intended to achieve substantial savings of costs, energy and carbon emissions; the report is critical of the Trust’s lack of consultation, secrecy in promoting and implementing the project, in some instances requiring Freedom of Information requests being issued and information not being made available because of ‘Commercial Confidentiality’. This reluctance created numerous problems with the residents and unnecessary bad will became evident, that even led to a QC being invited to provide his ‘Opinion’ on the legality of the heating and ancillaries duct route from the JR to the Churchill hospital. Some of the problems were overcome by the appointment of a Trust Communication Manager and a more positive attitude, when the contractor was permitted, at the construction phase, to consult residents directly and action the solutions as they arose.
This report is based on the simple energy usage and related costs that were provided by the Trust from which the remaining data has been calculated. No other cost or design information was provided.
The following comments have been expanded upon in the report;
3.1 Variable fuel tariffs were charged over the period described, which has aided a reduction in costs, without any input by the Trust or Contractor, however the tariff for the electricity supply has been significantly increased after the CHP plant was commissioned, but not enough to overcome the general savings. It was also noted that changes in the monthly tariffs varied widely over the latter period too.
3.2 In addition to the overall general reduction in carbon emissions for oil, gas and electrical supplies due the project, the emissions have also been reduced for gas and electricity by simply using a reduced ratio of carbon emissions per output value in the emission calculations, without any work being carried out by the Trust / Contractor or a reduction in energy usage. The only way these changes could have occurred is a change in the material content of the respective fuels, but I have not seen any reasons published for these changes in conversion rates to be used, published by the respective suppliers.
3.3 Feasibility studies were carried out by the City Council during the implementation of this project; both studies were rejected due to projected local carbon emissions, yet the Council appeared not to warn the Trust of its’ conclusions and permitted the Energy scheme to continue, despite the objections from residents. In addition, significant carbon emissions were created, both directly by the contractor and indirectly as a consequence of his work, which were also ignored.
3.4 The mid to long term environmental effects and economic feasibility of this CHP are questionable in that the Trust is now committed to ‘burning’ gas for at least the next 25 years to provide heating, hot water and electricity to both sites, however the current environmental and political climate is to increasingly use sustainable / renewal methods to supply electricity via the National Grid; ‘penalty’ tariffs may be introduced to reduce / eliminate gas usage for electricity production with a direct effect on costs. Carbon emissions from the site for electricity production will also increase relative to the renewable resources used by the utility supplier.
3.5 Recommendations are made that, for a similar scheme, the relevant Council review its’ policies and legislation to determine if a project can proceed or not, making sure that the contractor complies with all relevant legislation and policies, taking into account the legitimate concerns of its’ local residents / organisations. The Council should also ensure that all of the issues identified in this report, at least, are catered for by the contractor, including full transparency of the costs, the works and the consequences involved, particularly consultation and approval of S50 licences and approval by property owners whose ‘frontages ‘are affected by the proposed trenching.
3.6 It is concluded that the project is only partially successful, in that whilst the costs and total carbon emissions have been reduced, the energy usage and local carbon emissions have increased.
3.7 Analysis of the graphs included in the report, shows that the ‘trigger’ point for the changes was the introduction of the CHP and the use of the ‘ducted’ heating mains. The analyses also appear to suggest that the cost reduction was primarily due to the significant reduction in electrical supplies from the grid being replaced by the local gas supply being used to generate electricity. A consequence of this change is that local carbon emissions have increased, whilst national emissions decreased in proportion, to the significant detriment of Headington residents, students and business owners.
3.8 A calculation has been provided that shows the contractor / fund provider will make an estimated return on the investment of approximately16% / annum on his investment. A donation of £10k was made to a Resident’s Association, to compensate for inconvenience, although the Trust and contractor will be benefitting for the next 25 years, therefore it can therefore be simply and crudely put that the contractor and Trust are profiting at the expense of Headington residents.
4. Energy Usage
The data used for the graph below has been provided by the Trust for the period March 2012 – March 2019. The Trust is using the financial years 2012 – 2013 as the datum point for the calculations made to demonstrate the energy savings made since the inception of the project.
The graph below clearly shows the initial marginal reduction in the JR and Churchill electrical loads due to the improvement in the controls and equipment during the first four years of the project, however this reduction is immediately offset by the increase in gas usage when the CHP plant came on line. The heating mains were completed, it is believed in July / August 2017, so it can clearly be seen (Green columns) that the total energy significantly increases (approximately 10%) when the CHP is being used. There is no other obvious cause for the increase, for during the project planning period, the Trust were asked if there were any significant building developments (the usual cause for increased energy usage) and there were no known new developments on either site known to be commissioned at this time. It is concluded therefore that one of the Trust’s objective of significant energy savings has not been achieved.
The key energy usage data is shown in tabular form below
Key Years
Total Energy Used
Difference
%age Change
2012 - 13
102,977,391kWh
0
N/A
2016 - 17
102,624,511 kWh
-352,880
0% (Approx)
2018 - 19
112,890,773 kWh
9,913,382
9.6%
5. Costs
The data used for the graph below has been provided by the Trust for the period March 2012 – March 2019. The Trust is using the financial years 2012 – 2013 as the datum point for the calculations made to demonstrate the cost savings made since the inception of the project.
The graph below shows the general reduction in energy costs due to the updating of the plant and equipment plus the installation of the heating mains, which confirms that the Trust’s project has been very successful in reducing costs, however the reduction must be tempered with factors that are not directly evident, (see Tariffs – Section 6).
The cost of the total project was estimated at £14.7m, but no information has been formally published, or made available, for the cost of the interconnection between the two hospitals, therefore a cost benefit cannot be established for this element of the scheme, however the graph above shows the reduced total costs of the gas, electricity and oil purchased for energy consumption in the respective hospitals via the original and new plant and equipment.
Questions were raised on the method used to finance the project, for it is funded by Aviva, via The Carbon and Energy Fund, a government quango. The contract duration is 25 years with the plant and equipment provided and maintained by Vital Energi for this period, all of which will be handed back to the Trust on completion of the contract. The Trust indicated that it will not pay back any of the capital cost and approximately £500k will be paid to the hospital each year plus a percentage (not divulged) of any ‘extra over’ energy cost savings. This arrangement has all the hallmarks of a hybrid Private Finance Initiative which were generally frowned upon at the outset of the contract; The Trust has vehemently denied it is a PFI contract, stating ‘The Trust pays for the energy project using guaranteed savings over 25 years – not the capital budget’
Comments were made by residents that if the scheme was to be so successful then the NHS should have financed it directly and reaped the full benefits for the NHS.
It can be seen from above that a significant nett total cost saving has been achieved, i.e. approximately £3.1m / annum (£6.6m - £3.5m) in present day costs.
However, it is known that the hospital are to be paid a minimum of £0.46m / per annum from the ‘savings’ , therefore Arriva / Vital Energi will be receiving (£6.6m – £3.5m - £0.46m =) approx. £3.1m / annum for the future years of the contract, from which they will have to share the percentage for ‘additional’ energy savings agreed with the Trust, the capital cost of the project, project loan interest, and the cost of maintaining the plant and equipment, plus any increases in energy tariffs, dependant whether it has been included, or not, in the agreed financing arrangements (not available).
On face value, the capital cost will be recovered in (£14.7m/ 3.1m =) 4.7 years, which I believe will be a significant return on investment; the only risk that the contractor will be taking, now that the installation is complete, is an excessive increase in tariffs, if they are not included in the Trust, Aviva / Vital Energi and the Carbon and Energy Fund contract(s) or a major failure of the CHP plant, which is unlikely within the lifetime of the plant (30 years).
However, to obtain a scale of the income / expenditure, I have made an approximate assessment of the costs, using reasonable assumptions i.e.
Capital Cost = £14.7m
Loan Interest Rate = 7%*
Staff 4* persons @ nett cost of £60k* /person
Annualised Maintenance Plant / Equipment = 50% staff costs*
Loan Repayment Cost = £1,261k / annum
Staff Cost = £ 240k / annum
Average Maintenance Plant / Equip = £ 120k / annum
Energy Cost= £3,100k / annum
Energy Saving Returned to Trust= £ 460k / annum
-------------------------
Totals £5,181k / Annum (less Trust’s share of ‘excess’ energy s avings)
*Assumed – to be confirmed
Using the above assumptions, it can be seen that the contractor is receiving in the order of (6.6m - £5,181=) £1.4m / annum ‘profit’, a return of 9% approximately on the works element and 7% on the financing i.e. 16%
No information has been published on whether the contract financial model is subject to inflation indices on fuel tariffs, staff or equipment / plant costs.
The contract did not include any compensation for any of the organisations, residents or travellers through Headington, hospital patients or staff, who were disrupted, inconvenienced, delayed or directly lost money due to restricted parking or traffic congestion on the roads around Headington due to the duct works, although £10k was donated by the contractor to recognise the disruption and inconvenience caused to local residents in the Highfield area, only £1,000 of which has been spent to date.
6. Tariffs
The data used for the graph below has been provided by the Trust for the period March 2012 – March 2019. The Trust is using the financial years 2012 – 2013 as the datum point for the calculations made to demonstrate the average energy tariffs used to calculate the energy costs since the inception of the project.
From the graph below, it can be seen that the nett tariffs by both site and energy source charged throughout the period have changed considerably. In addition, the Trust received approximately £164k and £106k for the JR contribution and £36k for the Churchill contribution during the 2017 -18 and 2018 -19 periods, due, it is believed, to supplying electricity to the national grid. These costs have been incorporated into the nett tariff calculations.
It can be seen that the tariffs remained fairly constant during the initial four years of the contract, but the JR electrical tariff increased considerably during the period over which the heating mains were installed, commissioned and put into use. It is assumed that the electrical supply authority effectively ‘penalised’ the Trust for the introduction of CHP and the general single supply by the JR CHP plant to serve the JR and Churchill and the lower general needs of the ‘external’ grid supply. i.e. 15% of financial year 2012 – 13 energy requirements.
It was noted that there is a considerable discrepancy between the tariffs paid by the Churchill and JR for similar supplies and no reason has been provided for the discrepancy. e.g. during the financial year 2017 - 2018, the Churchill monthly tariff varied from £0.166 to £0.618 whilst the JR varied between £0.099 and £0.299, hence an ‘averaging’ tariff has been used for the graph above. For clarity the individual averaged fuel tariffs are shown over.
Obviously the general reduction in tarriffs means that the overall costs will be reduced, however the significant savings made has overcome the large increase in the electricity tariff.
Mention is made above in the Costs section about the contractor having to absorb the risk of increased tariffs on the energy supplies. It can clearly be seen that the contractor is very dependant on the gas supply tariff remaining ‘low’ to maintain the ‘savings’ but there is an increasing risk in gas tariffs being considerably increased to overcome environmental objections to gas being used as a fossil energy source rather than relying on sustainable resources for power over the next 25 years; it is not known whether the cost model being used allows for increases in tariffs due to inflation or government legislation.
7. Carbon Emissions
The Trust has, in the past, obtained energy and fuel supplies from three sources, gas, oil and electricity; the latter generated nationally from a variety of sources including coal, oil, nuclear and ‘sustainable’ / renewable i.e. solar, wind and wave generation. Sustainable energy and nuclear do not emit carbon when they are generating electricity whilst the other fuels do, to a varying degree.
Oil emits a high degree of carbon dioxide, even when being used efficiently, so the Trust have correctly removed their oil burning plant from the Churchill, even though the cost tariff was reducing and is now using the heat generated from the CHP plant to serve the Churchill via the ‘ducted’ heating mains. However, a problem arises in stating and comparing carbon emissions, for the actual carbon emissions via a public electricity grid are not known, for at any one time, it can be a mix of nuclear and sustainable i.e. no carbon emissions, or coal and oil, with a high degree of emissions. It is however known that the electricity industry is trying to achieve 100% non - carbon emissions over the medium to long term. For the purposes of this project it has been assumed that all electricity is being generated via gas.
The data used for the graph below has been provided by the Trust for the period March 2012 – March 2019. The Trust is using the financial years 2012 – 2013 as the datum point for the calculations made to demonstrate the carbon emissions generated since the inception of the project.
It should be noted that the data supplied by the Trust shows varying, and reducing, carbon emissions /kWh over the course of the measuring period as shown below.
Carbon Emissions (tonnes/MWh)
JR Electrical
JR Gas
Churchill Electrical
Churchill Gas
Churchill Oil
2012-13
0.54100
0.183600
0.54100
0.183600
0.24592
2013-14
0.54100
0.183600
0.54100
0.183600
0.24592
2014-15
0.53310
0.184557
0.53310
0.184557
0.24592
2015-16
0.49636
0.184070
0.49636
0.184070
0.24592
2016-17
0.44662
0.183645
0.44662
0.183645
0.24592
2017-18
0.38146
0.183810
0.38146
0.183810
0.24592
2018-19
0.38146
0.183810
0.38146
0.183810
0.24592
Average
0.47443
0.18387
0.47443
0.18387
0.24592
Clearly any comparison must be made against the original data and it can be seen that the JR electrical multiplying factor is 30% lower during the 2017 – 2019 period than the datum years of 2012 – 13, whilst the Churchill gas emissions vary, but are marginally lower, over the same period. The carbon emissions will therefore reduce simply due to mathematics, rather than alternative fuel supplies or less energy usage. I have asked the Trust for an explanation of the use of the lower ‘conversion’ factors but have not received a reply to date.
Assuming the above is correct then it can be seen that the total emissions have reduced, i.e. national grid electricity plus local gas usage, particularly when the CHP plant is ‘on – line’, however the graph below also shows the effect on the local environment.
From the above, it can be seen that the emissions created ‘elsewhere’ i.e. from the electricity generated and supplied via the national grid, is reduced when the CHP plant is ‘on - line’ but the local emissions have increased significantly due to use of the gas fired CHP plant, therefore the project has effectively ‘caused a deterioration of the ‘local’ air quality by increasing the carbon content, to the detriment of the Headington residents.
It should be noted that during the course of this project, the City Council also undertook similar CHP studies, with a variety of options for the Headington and West area ( BRE Client Report Heat Network Feasibility Study for Oxford Headington - 25 Nov 2016) which included the Trust properties, Brookes University, Headington School, Clive Booth Village, the University of Oxford site on Old Road and the use of Warneford Hospital site. The Study was discontinued due, it is believed, primarily to the potential increase in local carbon emissions.
Similarly, a Feasibility Study was undertaken (Heat Networks for Oxford – City Centre Feasibility Centre Study - 20 June 2016) which was also discontinued, it is also believed primarily due to the potential increase in local carbon emissions and the proposed introduction of a Carbon Emission Free Zone in the Centre of Oxford.
It is not known whether the City Council relayed their views to the Trust to outline their concerns, but it is apparent that the abandonment of these schemes had no effect on the Trust Energy project, although the design adopted similar principles.
It is believed that in the medium to long term, the use of fossil fuels including gas, will be discouraged for heat and electricity generation, probably by tariff increases and possibly shortages, whilst sustainable energy, via wind turbines, wave and solar, will be used to generate electricity, which will cause significant problems for this CHP plant and its cost effectiveness,
It should also be pointed out that the ‘incidental’ carbon emissions including hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides and particulate matter, that occurred during the installation of the heating mains etc appear to have been totally ignored, but must be significant in that these emissions include;
· The production of 4.4km of steel tubing, associated valves, fittings and insulation.
· The transport of the above materials from the manufacturers to the main storage site (JR).
· The incremental re-location of the above to the relevant sections of the duct route for installation.
· The use of transport and equipment to dig the duct and remove the spoil to another site.
· The use of transport to lower the pipework into position, weld it and maintain the duct free of water
· The use of transport of materials to fill the duct on completion
· The material and transport used to re-surface the relevant route.
· Traffic congestion due to the traffic restrictions.
· Personnel movement around the route
8. Design Philosophy
Investigation into the background of the pipeline project revealed that some years before this project had been developed to its final design, various District Heating Feasibility Studies proposals for the Headington area had been undertaken, embracing various educational and health establishments in Headington, but were rejected for reasons that I could not be establish, but I suspect was due to financial, management and possibly political reasons. This may have led to the ’District Heating’ nomenclature and Trust acceptance of the proposal described below. It is known that Brookes University, one of the principal organisations considered for the ‘District Heating’ proposals, simply provided their potential loadings to the Council Consultants, but carried on implementing its own energy strategy, which did not consider other establishments.
The Trust, which had to replace its’ main boiler plant and equipment, on both the John Radcliffe and Churchill hospital sites, had spent it’s ‘maintenance / replacement plant’ monies on other priorities, and had to arrange financing for the upgrade of the essential engineering plant and associated equipment. The Trust sent out enquiries to various design and installation contractors (4 off?), one of which (Vital Energi) suggested the linking of the two hospital sites as a part of its’ submission, along with an energy saving cost and carbon benefit analysis presumably based on a typical year with anticipated heating and electrical loads, whereas the other contractors opted for a simple two site strategy. The tendering process and evaluation methods were not published, and I was not able to access the details of the various submissions, nor the methodology used to select Vital Energi as the successful contractor, funding arrangements, whether it was negotiated, or retendered as a single or dual site strategy (see below) nor the typical year data used.
It is believed that the cost analysis considered that CHP was viable for two basic options;
7.1 A single CHP plant serving both sites, sited on the JR, the site with the highest loadings
7.2 Two CHP plants; one located on the JR site, the other on the Churchill site.
The Trust examined these options and accepted the recommended Option1 however it is known that this design incorporated an oversized CHP plant, which was available at a much cheaper cost than the optimum sized unit, but this size necessitated a means of dispersing the excess heat generated in the production of electricity, hence the heating mains being installed to the Churchill i.e. installing a set of Low Temperature Hot Water (LTHW) mains operating at 90oC with no interconnection to any other property owned or managed by another organisation.
There is apparently an ability to accommodate a 20% increase in available load should it become necessary on the Churchill site by increasing the temperature differentials between the flow and return pipework.
Adoption of this design meant that;-
· Back up plant was necessary on the Churchill site in case of heating mains failure.
· There would be less flexibility to ‘match’ the current varying load patterns on each site.
· Severe disruption would occur to the residents of Headington whilst installing the pipeline and cabling.
· The loss of flexibility available on the Churchill site to cater for the potential capacity for the various developments on the site to be incorporated into a CHP scheme, both non-NHS and NHS.
The scheme has had alternative titles including ‘Energy Link’, ‘District Heating’, but it is simply a pair of heating mains connecting ‘boiler’ plant to the heating and hot water service storage plant on the Churchill site. If it was a genuine District Heating scheme, as the City Council originally envisaged, it would have been seeking to connect up major developments, or even residential housing, en-route or adjacent such as the Nuffield Orthopaedic Hospital, which is a part of the Trust and no further distance than the Churchill hospital or even Beech House, which is directly on the path of the mains, but no attempt was made to incorporate the buildings into the CHP scheme. Similarly affected resident owners were not offered a (low cost?) link to their properties to mitigate disruption and inconvenience.
I do not know the current ‘back up’ arrangements in case of plant / utility supply failure; in the past, hospitals used to have alternative fuel supplies on site which enabled e.g. oil to be used in case of a gas supply failure, which had the added advantage of the Trust being able to negotiate ‘interruptible’ fuel supplies at a cheaper cost, although the alternative was rarely, if ever, used. The Trust appear to have backed themselves into a corner of total reliance on gas on a more expensive non – interruptible supply, which may rapidly become even more expensive, with an alternative supplier i.e. electricity at a very expensive tariff, should gas become unavailable or very expensive in the medium to long term.
9. Communications
Communications by the Trust from the outset of the project was extremely poor in that local residents initially knew nothing about the project, although it would have a tremendous effect on them in its’ implementation. The Trust eventually appointed a Communications Manager and permitted the contractor to talk directly to the residents throughout the heating main installation element of the contract (9 months) to resolve problems, which assisted greatly. It appeared that the Trust / Contractor had completely overlooked (or ignored) the full implications of the duct being excavated, pipework / cabling installed in 120m sections via residential roads and across the principal routes into / from Oxford.
Issues that arose include;-
9.1 Applications for the S50 licences to excavate the roads were not made in time.
9.2 The suitability of the contractor to carry out S50 licence work
9.3 Legal issues on ownership of the highways and whether the contractor could legally excavate the roads to the depth required without the permission of the adjacent residential housing owner’s approval. The contractor obtained a QC Opinion, to confirm its’ legality, which did not actually provide this assurance, nevertheless it was ignored by the County Council. It was noted however that the optimum route was modified such that, during the contract implementation, the route was diverted away from the property owned by the solicitor who raised the issue.
9.4 Freedom of Information requests data including threats of non-compliance had to be made for various items of information and data.
9.5 Basic information on the basis of the design and costings were never provided.
8.6 The Trust / Vital Energi eventually arranged ‘exhibitions’ to demonstrate the scheme but it was believed that the Trust staff were not fully conversant with the project at the outset.
8.7 Comments were formally made to the Trust, Contractor and County Council on the effect of the trench excavation in terms of;-
· Development of an accurate Traffic Management Plan
· Traffic congestion and consequent carbon emissions.
· Local carbon emissions during the installation of the pipework and cabling
· Inability to meet an extensive programme of works throughout the contract.
· Loss of time by drivers and passengers in vehicles affected by the road works.
· Local taxpayers absorbing the cost of continuous liaison with the contractor and re-arrangements of traffic restrictions and signage by Council staff.
· Emergency vehicles access to and through affected roads
· Replacement road parking
· Disability access for residents
· Temporary access to resident’s drives.
· Overnight noise and weekend working
· Programme delays due to unforeseen items
· Water pumping overnight from the trenching
· Arrangements for public utility engineers to be available in the event of damage to their service.
· Residents absent during the works being unaware of programme changes
· Assurances on the viability of the contractor to be in existence for the maintenance period of 25 years
The embargo on information by the Trust and instructions to the contractor not to divulge information prior to a press presentation at the outset of the ‘start on site’ for the duct excavation resulted in a huge expenditure in city and county councillor time trying to establish facts and ensure all parties were informed. The presentation was attended was attended by bus companies, senior council officers and residents to see what was going on.
Comments and objections on most of the above were raised with the local press, the BBC, local City and County Councillors, the County Council itself, all to no avail, however it is acknowledged that the Councils hands may be ‘tied’ to the current suitability of the local policies, and legislation to consider the above issues and approve / reject various applications to proceed with similar schemes.
In addition is known that ‘independent’ auditors are monitoring the performance of the contract but no effort has been made to forward any of the reports / comments, although it is understood that the scheme has already won awards for its’ success although it had only been in use for less than a year.
10. Conclusions
The primary conclusions are that;
10.1. The only direct achievement of the three objectives identified by the Trust at the outset of the project, has been the financial benefit to the contractor / Fund provider. The other two objectives identified i.e. energy consumption and local carbon emissions have actually increased, not reduced.
10.2. The Trust has indirectly benefitted financially by the capital cost being paid by the NHS via the Carbon and Energy Trust rather than its’ own capital funds.
10.3. Headington residents been left with the memories of reduced access to their properties, heavy traffic congestion, excess carbon and other deleterious emissions during the course of the contract and now have increased carbon emissions in the area at levels that were not regarded as acceptable by the City Council for the City Centre!
10.4. Whilst a token contribution of £10k has been given to a Residential Association, none of the remainder of the Headington Community will share the financial benefits reaped by the contractor / Trust over the reminder of the 25 years contract.
10.5. The Trust should have been totally transparent on the philosophy of the project from the initial stages rather than secretive, and consulted local residents on the project. The secrecy basically created an air of suspicion and a feeling by the residents and local businesses that the project was being forced through, with the co-operation of the local City and County Councils that believed the publicity about the project, or were limited in their ability to prevent the duct element of the project proceeding, but never voiced this view.
10.6. CHP feasibility studies were undertaken by the City Council during the course of the project, one of which was in Headington, demonstrated that local carbon emissions were a problem, however it is not known whether the Trust or Contractor were informed by the Council of the conclusion, or advised the Trust to re-consider the project, irrespective the Trust still proceeded with the scheme.
10.7. Questions have been raised on the medium to long term reliance on gas as the main source of energy and the dependence on the CHP plant on this fuel which will raise questions on the future of this plant in the medium to long term.
10.8. In the event of a similar project being proposed, answers should be obtained on whether all of the issues identified above have been included in the costings and programme of works, particularly the legality of carrying out trenching work across the ‘frontages’ of residents without the formal approval of the affected owners. S50 licence holders do not have the right to install services infrastructures without this approval. Although it was ignored by the County Council in this instance, it appears to have been successfully challenged in other area of the UK, therefore our public authorities and bodies need to do better in evaluating these issues in consulting them and addressing the public’s concerns.
10.9. There is little that can be done now on this project however the lessons learnt should be distributed to all Trusts and Councils that are to be involved with similar projects.
11. Recommendations
Whilst it believed that not much can be done with this project as it is already installed and commissioned, however the following actions are recommended;
1. The objectives and base assumptions should be clearly outlined at the commencement of the project.
2. All schemes should be subject to a full consultation with local residents.
3. The full extent of the works involved should be identified along with the direct and indirect effects on local residents / organisations.
4. Plans should be drawn up to show how the contractor will deal with legislation, local bye laws, policies and procedures, and issues that are identified by the residents.
5. An independent analysis should be made of claims made by a proposed contractor however it is acknowledged that if a client chooses to proceed irrespective of an independent view, then it is his/her own risk.
6. The Council should review national and their local legislation, policies and procedures to determine if they can prevent excessive inconvenience to the majority of local residents and implement them immediately.
APPENDIX 1
E-mail Peter West to Jason Dorsett (Estates Manager) and Vallabesan.Rasaratnam (Trust Energy Manager) dated 6th June
Dear BothYou will be aware that I indicated from the outset of this project that I would, on behalf of the residents of Headington, independently monitor the success of the energy project and the claims made by the Trust and Vital Energi and prepare a report on my conclusions. I attach my report for your information, and comment if you wish, that will be released to the members of the associations and Forum to which I belong on the 17th June. Obviously, any comments made must be with me before that date.
Response from Jason Dorsett 11th June
Dear Peter,Thank you for this. It was an interesting read.I wasn’t at the Trust when we agreed and started this project, but I accept completely that our process and communication about something very disruptive to our community was unacceptably poor.You acknowledged that we’ve made some improvements since and I hope we continue them.This is a very long term project and the costs and benefits need to be assessed periodically. Please do keep in touch every 6-12 months for an update. I will discuss with the team if we can publish data once a year which will do away with the need for FOIA requests.Jo and I periodically attend Headington community meetings. Perhaps we could talk at one of those?
Reply from Peter West 11th June
Hi JasonThanks for your comments. The problem was not just Trust’s attitude, but that the respective Councils have totally ignored the resident’ comments, even a legal opinion by a solicitor within our group, nor checked that the contractor’s statements were accurate or ask for monitoring information. I’ve sent you the draft to see if any of the data is incorrect rather than comment on my opinion which is and will stay as written provided the facts haven’t changed. I attend virtually all of the main Headington group meetings and chair two of them, so I’m happy to meet up with you even outside of the meetings. I would point out that when Jo was appointed she considerably improved communications; I've met her on a number of occasions and have no problems with Jo at all; she was good!I will not be issuing any more FOIs for Mark, your predecessor, and I agreed that the data had to be compiled anyway and it was just a matter of sending it regularly up to March 2019 which has been achieved. I assume that you have no more comments in the interim and that I can ‘release’ the report to members of my groups without further feedback from you?
NB This report has been written 18 months after the commissioning of the CHP installation and nothing has been done to update the residents in the interim period, as suggested above.
Response from Jason Dorsett 11th June
Dear Peter,We don’t intend to comment on your report. It is interesting, but in of view not always based on all the facts. However, we don’t have the resources to check it.
Reply from Peter West 11th June
Hi Jason
I’m interested in your ‘not all the facts’ comment; I did ask on numerous occasions for the facts but nothing was forthcoming. Can you let me know the missing facts then please?
No response so the following was sent;-
I have assumed from your e-mail that you will not be providing me with any updated or new facts which may influence the report by the 17th June and I just want to confirm that I am correct? In which case I will release the report today.
No response
Appendix 2 – Commissioning Publicity
This text was released on the internet following the formal commissioning of the plant in November 2017. The key statements are highlighted.
The £14.8m Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Energy Project was officially opened on Friday 10th November by Oxford East MP, Anneliese Dodds. OUH Chairman, Dame Fiona Caldicott, CEO, Dr Bruno Holthof and Vital Energi’s Ashley Malin were also in attendance.
It was also the day that the Trust received its first month’s figures on energy usage at the John Radcliffe and Churchill Hospitals (excluding the PFI estates) for the first full month’s operation of the new CHP and Energy Link.
· In October 2016, OUH’s energy bill for the JR & Churchill (excluding the PFI estates) was £484,175.03.
· In October 2017, the same bill was £252,832.27.
· An energy spend reduction of £231,343.03 in the first month’s full service of the CHP. It equates to a saving of £7,462 every day at these two hospitals (excluding the PFI estates).
The Hospital Energy Project has included removing the 30 and 40-year-old boilers in the Churchill and John Radcliffe Hospitals and replacing them with a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) engine, new combi boilers, associated upgrades and the replacement of 6,407 light fittings.
The two hospitals, which now share the energy centre at John Radcliffe Hospital, are connected via a 2.2km energy link which includes High Voltage cabling, district heating pipework and communications cabling.
This new energy and heating infrastructure will cut the Trust’s CO₂ output by 10,000 tonnes per year (the equivalent of 4,000 homes’ CO₂ emissions) and guarantees to save the Trust £461,746 (net) a year on its energy bills for 25 years.
Dr Holthof said: “Today marks the culmination of 2 ½ years of work to remove our 30-year old boilers at the JR and Churchill and replace them with innovative engineering that gives the Trust the infrastructure we need today and into the future.”
He also thanked local residents saying: “The Energy Link work through Headington caused disruption and the Trust is very grateful to residents for their support throughout the Project.”
Ashley Malin for Vital Energi concluded: “In addition to the significant financial savings, this Project also delivers significant benefits to the local community in lower CO₂ emissions and the Trust will certainly benefit for long-term future proofing of their energy and heat infrastructure.
“Vital Energi would also like to thank the many residents and Councillors who gave us such support at our monthly liaison meetings – your involvement and local knowledge were very valuable, and you were enormously helpful. At the end of the Energy Link, the District Heating team received some very complimentary calls and emails from residents, which we really appreciated.”
Claire Hennessy, Head of OUH Operational Estates and Facilities Mangement, said: “This is a new era of sustainable energy provision for the Trust. For the first time in decades, we are going into the winter with reliable heat and power, while also cutting our CO₂ emissions and saving on our energy bills and backlog maintenance.”
Claire added: “The Trust was recently awarded “2017 Sustainability Project of the Year” at the prestigious IHEEM Awards (Institute of Healthcare Engineering & Estate Management) for this Project. The awards are peer group judged and hotly contested, so we were very pleased to receive this recognition for our vision and results so far.”
Mark Bristow, OUH Lead Project Manager for the Hospital Energy Project, said: “It is a testament to the skill and commitment of everyone involved in this Project that several thousands of tonnes of equipment were decommissioned, dismantled and removed while, concurrently, complex new systems were installed and commissioned without interrupting any patient care at either hospital
Appendix 3 – City Council Response to an enquiry by Annaliese Dodds MP
Appendix 4 – Response from Institute of Healthcare Engineering & Estate Management
The Oxford University Trust Healthcare Trust was awarded the Institute of Healthcare Engineering and Estate Award for the John Radcliffe Project in October 2017; the purpose of the award is outlined below. I contacted the IHEEM to determine if Vital Energi should keep the ward in the light of the findings of this report, bearing in mind the cornerstone of the project i.e the installation of the CHP was not commissioned until November 2017 also. i.e. the project was presumably validated by the IHEEM assessors before the plant was even commissioned!
Sustainable Achievement – Oxford University Hospitals NHS FT Energy Award
This award recognises the organisation or team that has made the best use of innovative technology and sustainable practices to reduce its project’s carbon footprint. The judges looked at specific initiatives, supporting documents including the EPC, BREEAM rating and sustainability statements, and the benefits to both client and the environment.
The judges commented “Really good outcomes for cost and carbon savings from a well-co-ordinated project. Oxford University Hospital Trust had significant energy issues. They have made full use of the resources available to them which has enabled them to replace their energy infrastructure in an innovative way resulting in savings of £460k per year.”
Response
Dear Mr West,
Thank you for your note and for the copy of the report you sent with it.
We have noted the concerns you express, particularly about learning from experience and sharing best practice. We will pick up on the salient points you mention and ensure that in general terms they are used to inform and influence our wider membership.
We cannot comment on the technical aspects of the project and you will have to resolve these with the Trust.
Regarding the 2017 Sustainability Award, we are confident that appropriate protocols and due diligence were followed. The independent and impartial judging panel were presented at the time with some results of the initial findings and the award was made in part on the success already achieved by the project.
For these reasons we do not feel that to rescind the Award is appropriate.
Thanks again for contacting us, and I hope that the matter reaches a satisfactory conclusion shortly.
Regards,
Chris Parker
Membership Development Manager
Institute of Healthcare Engineering and Estate Management
T: 02392 823186 F: 02392 815927 W: www.iheem.org.uk
A: 2 Abingdon House, Cumberland Business Centre, Portsmouth, PO5 1DS
Appendix 5 – Response from the Trust & Vital Energi
I have forwarded copies of my final report twice to the Trust to date (16/07/2019) and have not received a response, however I have now received the e-mail below from the Leader of the City Council and the spreadsheet referred to in the text over.
Dear Mr West
I wasn’t aware that you were seeking a response from me about your paper which I assumed had been sent to all Headington councillors for information. However, I did write to OUH asking them if they had any response to what you had said. I have just returned from two weeks away and am catching up on emails, and dealing with an email outage so apologies for the delay.
I am not sure if you are aware, but I also work for OUH. I wanted to make sure you are aware of that fact which is stated on my declaration of interests.
I received the following response from the Trust which they said they were happy for me to forward to you which seems to indicate that carbon emissions are down.
Response from OUH (in italics below).
The Trust and Vital Energi have read the Headington resident’s report about the installation of the Energy Project for Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.
Whilst the report relies upon a number of assumptions, the Trust can report that the Energy Project is delivering its goals of reducing energy costs and carbon emissions. The Trust’s annual spend on energy for John Radcliffe Hospital and Churchill Hospital in 2018 was £2.73m and its carbon emissions were 19,700 tonnes. Without the Energy Project, the Trust’s energy spend would have been £5.33m and carbon emissions of 22,105 tonnes in that same year. This demonstrates that the Energy Project is delivering (and exceeding) the savings that were modelled to be achieved by the investment.
Additionally, by replacing the old energy infrastructure the Energy Project has significantly improved energy supply resilience, which ensures continued reliable patientcare is assured.
The Trust and Vital Energi are committed to demonstrate continuous improvement through working closely together to further reduce the Trust’s carbon footprint and improve energy efficiency across the hospital estate over the life of the agreement. The cost savings achieved from this Energy Project and future energy projects will enable the Trust to release more money to front line patient care and clinical services.
I have also attached a spreadsheet that Vital Energi has produced showing the numbers. It is in the public domain, but not widely circulated since you need a level of knowledge about the project to interpret them correctly.
The spreadsheet also answers the question: “If gas prices go up, will you be able to achieve the same savings?” In layman’s terms the answer to this is: Regardless of the price of the gas, the Trust will be using fewer units of gas. Thus, if we use fewer units of gas, we are still saving. Had we done nothing, or installed a system that is not so efficient, we would be using more units of gas and, therefore, paying a lot more.
I am sure there is still plenty more that they can do we will certainly take every opportunity we have to talk to the Trust about environmental issues, the further actions they can take and how we can help.
The Citizens’ Assembly work will no doubt inform not just the City Council’s response to Climate Change but also large employers and landowners in the city such as the NHS and the two Universities. It is an exciting opportunity.
Thank you for your email.
Kind regards,
Susan
Councillor Susan Brown
City Councillor for Churchill Ward
Leader Oxford City Council
Appendix 5 (Cont’d) – Vital Energi Response
The table below has been provided by Vital Energi and is supposed to answer my comments. As you can see it doesn’t even mention local carbon emissions but simply repeats the ‘it’s the most financially viable’ option.
Appendix 6 – OUH NHS Trust Report
Subsequent to this report being issued, questions were raised on whether the Trust / Vital Energi had actually claimed that the project would reduce local carbon emissions. I indicated that Appendix 3 clearly showed that was their intention, however I conducted a search on the internet and found the following undated report,
‘Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust ‘The Hospital Energy Project’ so it is clearly a Trust publication although obviously written and photographed by Vital Energi.
To reduce space, I have deleted the photos included in the report and simply included the Text; the report pages are not numbered, so I have included number of easy reference. I refer you to the item labelled page 7.
Page 1 Cover Sheet
Page 2
The £14.8 million Hospital Energy Project has included removing the 30 and 40-year- old boilers in the Churchill and John Radcliffe Hospitals and replacing them with a 4.5MWe Combined Heat & Power Engine (CHP), new combi boilers, Energy Link, heat stations and upgraded building management systems.
It has also included the replacement of c.6,400 light fittings.
All of this work took two years and completed without interrupting any patient care or clinical procedures at either hospital.
The design, fabrication, installation, and commissioning of this project has been delivered on an agreement between the Trust and Vital Energi, with the Carbon Energy Fund providing contract, legal and technical support.
This new energy and heating infrastructure will cut the Trust’s CO2 output by 10,000 tonnes per year (the equivalent of 4,000 homes’ CO2 emissions) and guarantees to save the Trust £461,746 every year on its energy bills for 25 years.
THIS IS HOW WE DID IT...
Page 3
WE REPLACED:
6,407 light fittings and the old boilers
Page 4
WE ALSO REMOVED:
Lots of asbestos
Page 5
WE UPDATED
The BMS
Air cooling systems
UPGRADED:
pipework
Page 6
INSTALLED:
a 4.5MWe CHP at the JR and new steam boilers at both hospitals
WE RETAINED
JR’s two newest steam boilers as back up
& JOINED
the two hospitals on a district heating scheme
Appendix 6 – OUH NHS Trust Report (Cont’d)
Page 7
AND NOW ....
WE HAVE FUTUREPROOFED
our heating and power infrastructure
WE WILL SAVE:£461,746 p.a. on energy – guaranteed for 25 years 10,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions p.a.£11,000,000 on backlog maintenance approximately 3,200 blown light bulbs p.a.
WE HAVE REDUCED:dependency on The Gridlegionella riskmaintenance / shut downsdisruption to clinical areas caused by lack of heating and blown light bulbs
AND IMPROVED:lighting qualityair quality in HeadingtonOUH’s energy efficiency and infrastructure
WE HAVE FUTUREPROOFED
our heating and power infrastructure
WE WILL SAVE:£461,746 p.a. on energy – guaranteed for 25 years 10,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions p.a.£11,000,000 on backlog maintenance approximately 3,200 blown light bulbs p.a.
WE HAVE REDUCED:dependency on The Gridlegionella riskmaintenance / shut downsdisruption to clinical areas caused by lack of heating and blown light bulbs
AND IMPROVED:lighting qualityair quality in HeadingtonOUH’s energy efficiency and infrastructure
Appendix 7 – Formal Complaint to Trust
The Trust advised that any complaint must go through their formal Complaints Procedure and a response would be provided within 25 working days from being submitted (13th August) i.e. 17th September, irrespective of the fact that report had been with the Trust informally for nearly two months previously. The e-mail below is the formal complaint.
Hi Eileen
Further to your e-mail, I became concerned that, as I had objected to my report being formally regarded as a complaint, it may be ignored; I had hoped that the report would be considered simply as a comment on the achievements or not, lessons to be learnt, praise, if appropriate and corrective action to be taken, if necessary, all as agreed with a former Director of Estates, which would be discussed and considered locally with yourselves first, but if it is necessary to submit a ‘complaint’, then please accept this e-mail as a formal complaint, as outlined below;-
The Trust publicly announced that the Energy Project, valued at £14.8m, had three objectives, as outlined below.
1. Cost Saving - Achieved
2. Energy Reduction - Failed
3. Local Carbon Emissions - Failed
In addition, indirect local carbon emissions that occurred due to the production of relevant materials, transport and the installation of the energy link pipework and cabling, and local traffic congestion were ignored in the carbon emission statements, therefore a comment on this issue would be appreciated in your review.
I understood that the Energy and Carbon Trust were providing an independent overview and the management of payments due, based on the system performance; this clearly has not been successful as it has been obvious that the carbon emissions and energy reductions were not being achieved from the time that the CHP plant was commissioned, but has been ignored.
I have commented on various other issues in my report, and assume that they will be reviewed over time, but my immediate and main concern, on behalf of the Headington and Marston residents, students and businesses are the local carbon emissions and assume that you will review this as a priority.
In order to concentrate the discussion, I have shown below a summary of your data, provided to me in May this year, with the problem data clearly identified, but please note that the carbon emission data in the recent years has had a reducing Carbon Efficiency Factor included in your data which gives a better comparison when compared with that produced in 2012 -13 (the most recent Trust data is approx 30% lower!)
The general data shown is kWh unless otherwise listed
JR Electric
JR Gas
CH Electric
CH Gas
CH oil
Total Cost (£)
Total CO2 Tonnes
Local CO2 Tonnes
Total Energy (kWhr)
2018-19
4,342,854
96,499,494
0
12,048,425
0
3,547,706
21,609
19,952
112,890,773
2017-18
16,978,331
77,012,473
2,689,572
15,337,991
0
4,570,000
24,477
16,975
112,018,366
2016-17
28,266,038
46,143,394
8,766,500
9,176,699
10,271,880
5,587,468
29,225
12,685
102,624,511
2015-16
28,686,230
41,518,485
9,933,452
5,996,093
13,507,608
6,103,269
31,237
12,068
99,641,868
2014-15
28,394,274
39,413,430
9,655,009
6,546,624
14,818,212
6,536,990
32,410
12,126
98,827,549
2013-14
28,557,786
39,663,496
10,395,033
7,800,830
15,300,888
6,449,864
33,551
12,477
101,718,033
2012-13
28,130,166
39,951,813
10,336,779
8,250,501
16,308,132
6,628,900
33,671
12,860
102,977,391
I've enclosed a further copy of my report and a copy of your publicity brochure for completeness of information, so the complaint is-
Part 1
a) why has the project substantially failed in its objectives
b) Why was it not monitored correctly and corrective action taken at the time that the objectives were obviously not going to be achieved
c) What steps are the Trust going to implement to reduce the local carbon emissions as promised to the public.
d) When will corrective action be taken to reduce local carbon emission to 12,000 tonnes / annum or less i.e less than the genuine carbon emission reduction due to the general effect of improved plant, controls, and electrical equipment
Part 2
d) A follow up comment on the remaining process and communication problems.
I trust that I will receive confirmation of receipt of this e-mail and dates for the issue of a constructive response to Part 1 and 2 of the complaint.
Appendix 7 – Formal Complaint to Trust (Con’td)
When I have received a response to each of the above, they will naturally be circulated to a significant number of concerned ‘persons of influence’ and they will respond accordingly.
Thanks & Regards
Peter
Energy Costs (£)
JR Electrical2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-193001601.232863999432237683321044.543345768.83170117.40999999972127351.85918115.77JR Gas2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-191379775.8137680001993872.39400000021258675.31999999981070775.82893765.580000000071679760.55999999982199506.12Churchill Electrical2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-191031093.705249999911400241094394.561104035.25920889.04999999993351099.3869195.44Churchill Gas2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-19288602.52498000005268335225419.31175191220223.16411788.17360888.49Churchill Oil2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-19927826.38823864.1399999999637456.23600000003407498.5382472.6500Totals2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-196628899.65686199916449863.5346536989.9666103269.37000000015587467.85000000064569999.963547705.8200000003
Average Energy Tariffs £/kWh)
JR Electrical2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-190.106703999999999980.112885781831966940.116961769827254610.11663326969071920.112152873223836260.125298058604760930.21140838950607135JR Gas2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-193.4536000000000004E-22.5057609495643052E-23.1935188589270198E-22.5790339411469375E-21.9369307337904103E-22.1811539021737426E-22.2792929048933666E-2Churchill Electrical2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-199.9749999999999991E-20.10967007031146510.113349926447505130.111143163861158160.105046376604646950.130541009971290980Churchill Gas2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-193.4980000000000004E-23.439826274896389E-23.4432909236883011E-22.9217525478674195E-22.3998080355474228E-22.6847594968597906E-22.9953167322699856E-2Churchill Oil2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-195.6893479890891246E-25.3844204336375767E-24.3018431373501746E-23.0168072689109721E-23.7234921942234531E-200
Gas Tarriffs (£/kWh)
Gas JR2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-193.4536000000000004E-22.5057609495643052E-23.1935188589270198E-22.5790339411469375E-21.9369307337904103E-22.1811539021737426E-22.2792929048933666E-2Gas Churchill2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-193.4980000000000004E-23.439826274896389E-23.4432909236883011E-22.9217525478674195E-22.3998080355474228E-22.6847594968597906E-22.9953167322699856E-2
Electrical Tarriffs (£/kWh)
ElectricsJR2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-190.106703999999999980.112885781831966940.116961769827254610.11663326969071920.112152873223836260.125298058604760930.21140838950607135ElectricsChurchill 2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-199.9749999999999991E-20.10967007031146510.113349926447505130.111143163861158160.105046376604646950.130541009971290980
Churchill Oil Tarriff (£/kWh)
OilChurchill2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-195.6893479890891246E-25.3844204336375767E-24.3018431373501746E-23.0168072689109721E-23.7234921942234531E-200
Carbon Emissions (Tonnes)
JR Electrical2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-1915137.09668600000115469.38646000000215308.5092915462.49844799999815291.6873278000029185.27680049999982349.4840139999997JR Gas2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-197335.1528668000017282.21786560000157236.30574799999897622.79384600000148471.927138400000314139.49004279999817717.307098400001Churchill Electrical2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-195592.19743900000055623.7128535223.35986899999995373.99736970000054742.67644589999961455.05818150Churchill Gas2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-191514.79198360000011432.23238800000041201.96016640000021100.88267480000011684.84193639999992816.05514760000052212.0908300000001Churchill Oil2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-194010.49582144000033762.79437696000013644.09469504000033321.79095935999982526.060729599999800Total
2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-1933589.73479683999933570.34394356000832614.2297684432881.96329785999832717.19357809999927595.880172422278.881942400003
Carbon Emissions
Local v National
JR & CH Electrical2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-1920729.29412521093.09931300000220531.86915900000220836.49581770000120034.36377370000310640.3349822349.4840139999997JR & CH Gas & Oil2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-1912860.44067184000212477.24463056000212082.36060943999812045.46748016000112682.829804416955.545190419929.397928400002JR & CH Gas2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-198849.94485040000118714.45025360000188438.2659143999998723.676520800001510156.769074816955.545190419929.397928400002
Energy Usage (kWh)
JR Electrical2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-192813016628557786283942742868623028266038.29999999716978330.54342854JR Gas 2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-1939951813396634963941343041518485461433947701247396499494Churchill Electrical2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-19103367791039503396550099933451.69999999938766499.90000000042689571.50Churchill Gas2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-19825050178008306546624599609391766991533799112048425Churchill Oil2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-19163081321530088814818212135076081027188000Totals (KWh)2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-191029773911017180339882754999641867.700000003102624511.2112018366112890773
7
Gas and Electricity Unit Prices
Gas Price (p/kWh) 1.83Oil Price (p/kWh) 4.40Electricty Price (Day) (p/kWh) 10.09Electricty Price (Night) (p/kWh) 8.90Biomass Fuel Price (p/kWh) 4.00
CCL - Gas (p/kWh) 0.203CCL - Electricity (p/kWh) 0.583Carbon Price Support (p/kWh) 0.331Gas Carbon Factor (kg CO2/kWh) 0.18362Grid Elec Carbon Factor (kg CO2/kWh) 0.30482Oil Carbon Factor (kg CO2/kWh) 0.26733existing boiler efficiency - JRH 70%existing boiler efficiency - CCH 60%new installation boiler efficiency 78%
EUETS Carbon Cost (£/tonne) 20.00
2018/19 Carbon Factors and CCL ratesSeparate CHP Systems CHP + Energy Link
Energy and Emissions Data Do Nothing 3.3MWe CHP - JRH776kWe CHP - CCH4.5MWe CHP
with energy link
JRH thermal demand 32,972,357 kWh 32,972,357 kWh 32,972,357 kWh
CCH thermal demand 4,033,053 kWh 4,033,053 kWh 4,033,053 kWh
JRH electricity demand 28,491,274 kWh 28,491,274 kWh 28,491,274 kWh
CCH electricity demand 9,758,161 kWh 9,758,161 kWh 9,758,161 kWh
Thermal
Gas to JRH boilers 47,103,367 kWh 14,516,803 kWh 13,977,731 kWh
Gas to CCH boilers 0 kWh 923,598 kWh 0 kWh
Oil to CCH boilers 6,721,754 kWh 0 kWh
Gas to JRH CHP 0 kWh 64,152,449 kWh 84,716,439 kWh
Gas to CCH CHP 0 kWh 17,495,291 kWh 0 kWh
Total site gas consumption 47,103,367 kWh 97,088,141 kWh 98,694,170 kWh
Electricity
Import Electricity Day - JRH 21,319,168 kWh 3,351,191 kWh 4,583,535 kWh
Import Electricity Night - JRH 7,172,106 kWh 584,860 kWh 773,121 kWh
Import Electricity Day - CCH 7,356,466 kWh 2,981,314 kWh 0 kWh
Import Electricity Night - CCH 2,401,695 kWh 600,621 kWh 0 kWh
Generated Electricity Day 0 kWh 22,630,557 kWh 24,400,547 kWh
Generated Electricity Night 0 kWh 8,506,672 kWh 8,927,688 kWh
Export Electricity Day 0 kWh 0 kWh 0 kWh
Export Electricity Night 0 kWh 0 kWh 0 kWh
CHP parasitics 0 kWh 405,780 kWh 435,456 kWh
Total site electricity consumption 38,249,435 kWh 38,655,215 kWh 38,684,891 kWh
Financial data
Electricity Costs
Import Units Charge 3,744,189£ 744,219£ 531,117£
Export Revenue -£ -£ -£
Sub Total 3,744,189£ 744,219£ 531,117£
Fuel Costs
Gas to Boilers 860,249£ 265,120£ 255,275£
Oil to Boilers 295,757£ -£ -£
Gas to CHP -£ 1,491,133£ 1,547,176£
Sub Total 1,156,006£ 1,756,253£ 1,802,452£
Gov't levies and incentives
CCL on Natural Gas 95,620£ -£ -£
CCL on Grid Import Electricity 166,104£ 22,947£ 31,229£
EUETS 172,982£ 356,546£ 362,444£
Sub Total 434,706£ 379,494£ 393,674£
Trust avoided none energy costs
Plant Operation & Maintenance 38,000£ -£ -£
Plant and infrastructure running repairs 44,000£ -£ -£
Sub-contracted services 34,600£ -£ -£
Chemicals 10,650£ -£ -£
Sub Total 127,250£ -£ -£
Total Annual Costs 5,462,152£ 2,879,966£ 2,727,243£
Annual Energy Savings Vs Do Nothing 2,582,186£ 2,734,909£
CO2 emissions (tonnes p/a) 22,105 20,119 19,755
CO2 emissions reduction (%) - 9% 11%
Gas and Electricity Unit Prices
Gas Price (p/kWh) 1.83
Oil Price (p/kWh) 4.40
Electricty Price (Day) (p/kWh)10.09
Electricty Price (Night) (p/kWh)8.90
Biomass Fuel Price (p/kWh)4.00
CCL - Gas (p/kWh) 0.203
CCL - Electricity (p/kWh) 0.583
Carbon Price Support (p/kWh)0.331
Gas Carbon Factor (kg CO2/kWh)0.18362
Grid Elec Carbon Factor (kg CO2/kWh)0.30482
Oil Carbon Factor (kg CO2/kWh)0.26733
existing boiler efficiency - JRH70%
existing boiler efficiency - CCH60%
new installation boiler efficiency78%
EUETS Carbon Cost (£/tonne)20.00
2018/19 Carbon Factors and CCL rates
Separate CHP SystemsCHP + Energy Link
Energy and Emissions Data Do Nothing
3.3MWe CHP - JRH
776kWe CHP - CCH
4.5MWe CHP
with energy link
JRH thermal demand 32,972,357 kWh32,972,357 kWh32,972,357 kWh
CCH thermal demand 4,033,053 kWh4,033,053 kWh4,033,053 kWh
JRH electricity demand 28,491,274 kWh28,491,274 kWh28,491,274 kWh
CCH electricity demand 9,758,161 kWh9,758,161 kWh9,758,161 kWh
Thermal
Gas to JRH boilers 47,103,367 kWh14,516,803 kWh13,977,731 kWh
Gas to CCH boilers 0 kWh 923,598 kWh 0 kWh
Oil to CCH boilers 6,721,754 kWh 0 kWh
Gas to JRH CHP 0 kWh64,152,449 kWh84,716,439 kWh
Gas to CCH CHP 0 kWh17,495,291 kWh 0 kWh
Total site gas consumption 47,103,367 kWh97,088,141 kWh98,694,170 kWh
Electricity
Import Electricity Day - JRH 21,319,168 kWh3,351,191 kWh4,583,535 kWh
Import Electricity Night - JRH 7,172,106 kWh 584,860 kWh773,121 kWh
Import Electricity Day - CCH 7,356,466 kWh2,981,314 kWh 0 kWh
Import Electricity Night - CCH 2,401,695 kWh 600,621 kWh 0 kWh
Generated Electricity Day 0 kWh22,630,557 kWh24,400,547 kWh
Generated Electricity Night 0 kWh8,506,672 kWh8,927,688 kWh
Export Electricity Day 0 kWh 0 kWh 0 kWh
Export Electricity Night 0 kWh 0 kWh 0 kWh
CHP parasitics 0 kWh 405,780 kWh435,456 kWh
Total site electricity consumption 38,249,435 kWh38,655,215 kWh38,684,891 kWh
Financial data
Electricity Costs
Import Units Charge 3,744,189£ 744,219£ 531,117£
Export Revenue -£ -£ -£
Sub Total 3,744,189£ 744,219£ 531,117£
Fuel Costs
Gas to Boilers 860,249£ 265,120£ 255,275£
Oil to Boilers 295,757£ -£ -£
Gas to CHP -£ 1,491,133£ 1,547,176£
Sub Total 1,156,006£ 1,756,253£ 1,802,452£
Gov't levies and incentives
CCL on Natural Gas 95,620£ -£ -£
CCL on Grid Import Electricity 166,104£ 22,947£ 31,229£
EUETS 172,982£ 356,546£ 362,444£
Sub Total 434,706£ 379,494£ 393,674£
Trust avoided none energy costs
Plant Operation & Maintenance 38,000£ -£ -£
Plant and infrastructure running repairs 44,000£ -£ -£
Sub-contracted services 34,600£ -£ -£
Chemicals 10,650£ -£ -£
Sub Total 127,250£ -£ -£
Total Annual Costs 5,462,152£ 2,879,966£ 2,727,243£
Annual Energy Savings Vs Do Nothing 2,582,186£ 2,734,909£
CO2 emissions (tonnes p/a) 22,105 20,119 19,755
CO2 emissions reduction (%) - 9% 11%
