NEP_2012_EM_NHS_CRP_Phase_II_1a_REA_pilot_report170412

NHS East Midlands Carbon Reduction Project – Energy in NHS Estates pilot.
Nottingham Energy Partnership (NEP) established in 1997.
10
th
Floor, Castle Heights Building, 72 Maid Marian Way, Nottingham NG1 6BJ
Tel: 0115 9859057 Email: jerome.b@nottenergy.com Website: www.nottenergy.com
Company number: 4257637 Charity number: 1091513
NHS East Midlands
Carbon Reduction Project
Phase II
Report on the Renewable Energy
Assessment (REA) element of the
‘Energy in NHS Estates’ pilot (1a)
– Findings and recommendations –.
Task Name Date
Prepared by Laura Mayhew-Manchon, NEPes 28/03/2012
Checked by Jerome Baddley, NEPes 28/03/2012

22012, NEP Energy Services Ltd, part of the charity Nottingham Energy Partnership (NEP),
established in 1997.
NHS East Midlands
Carbon Reduction Project – Phase II
Report on the Renewable Energy Assessment element of the
‘Energy in NHS Estates’ pilot (1a)
– Findings and recommendations –.
Final version
28 March 2012
This report has been produced with the help of the following individuals:
Laura Mayhew-Manchon, AIEMA BSc Hons, NEP Energy Services Ltd
Jerome Baddley, AIEMA, PGCE, BSc Hons, NEP Energy Services Ltd
Estelle Nma, AIEMA MSc, BEng Hons, NEP Energy Services Ltd
Jennifer Strong, AIEMA BSc Hons, NEP Energy Services Ltd
NEP Energy Services Ltd
Part of the Nottingham Energy Partnership (NEP), established in 1997.
Address:
10th
Floor
Castle Heights Building
72 Maid Marian Way
Nottingham
NG1 6BJ
Telephone: 0115 985 9057
Email: jerome.b@nottenergy.com
Website: www.nottenergy.com
Company number: 4257637
Charity number: 1091513

CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................4
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................5
2. KEY OBJECTIVES.............................................................................................................. 13
3. METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................. 15
4. RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 17
5. VALUE ADDED OUTCOMES.............................................................................................. 20
6. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 21
7. USEFUL LINKS AND FURTHER READING ........................................................................... 22
APPENDICES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Nottingham Energy Partnership (NEP) would like to thank:
 NHS Midlands and East, for providing the funding for the NHS East Midlands Carbon
Reduction Project via its Regional Innovation Fund.
 The DH East Midlands, for commissioning and facilitating this piece of work.
 NHS Nottingham City, for administrating the funding.
 The healthcare organisations that have participated in this pilot as partners, for
patiently sharing their experience, data, and time with NEPes.
 The members of the EM NHS Carbon Reduction Project Steering Group, for their
valuable input and feedback provided throughout Phase II of the Project.
 The EM NHS Sustainable Development Network, for promoting the exchange and
dissemination of useful lessons, ideas and good practice amongst its members.
 The other providers delivering Phase II pilots, for sharing inspiring and innovative
examples of sustainability in practice across different areas of NHS operations.

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1. Project overview
In 2009/10, the East Midlands NHS Carbon Reduction Project (EM NHS CRP) was established.
Funded by the NHS East Midlands Regional Innovation Fund, this Project consisted on two
distinct phases:
PHASE 1:
 Phase 1 of the Project succeeded in establishing the carbon footprint of the NHS in the
region, which was made available to the public in a published report1
launched at an EM
NHS Sustainable Network event held in Nottingham in November 20102
.
 The regional NHS carbon footprint identified that 27% of all CO2e emissions attributable
to the NHS in the East Midlands arise as a result of energy use in healthcare buildings,
evidencing the significance of this aspect of carbon management and the need to take
urgent action to minimise it wherever possible.
 A series of strategic and practical recommendations stemmed from the Phase I report,
to support improvements in natural resource efficiency and reduce the environmental
impact of healthcare provision in the Region.
 These recommendations concentrated on measures which could be seamlessly and
easily integrated into the daily operations of NHS trusts and other healthcare
organisations, ranged from the ‘trialled-and-tested’ to the cutting-edge of innovation,
and covered potential savings across energy, cost and carbon emissions. Those
specifically pertinent to renewable energy were:
 As a result, six pilot projects were developed as a means of putting some of the Phase 1
key recommendations into practice, led by a range of specialist providers, working in
partnership with healthcare organisations across the region.
1
NEP, 2010. “NHS East Midlands Carbon Reduction Project Phase I – Report on Footprinting, Analysis and
Recommendations”. Available at:
www.emphasisnetwork.org.uk/networks/sd/documents/FinalEMCarbonReductionProjectPhaseIreportv23.pdf
2
‘Fit for the Future? A Low Carbon Health Service Conference and Marketplace’. 18/11/10, Nottingham
Conference Centre. For more information please visit:
http://www.emphasisnetwork.org.uk/networks/sd/event18nov10.htm
10.10. Energy- Recommendations for work in Phase II
4. “A Feed In Tariffs (FITs) assessment / renewable energy potential feasibility
assessment for EM healthcare
4.1. owned, leased and potentially new sites,
4.2. a desktop feasibility assessment should be carried out for Wind and
PV in NHS sites,
4.3. This should enable NHS organisations to decide if there are
opportunities worth pursuing further or not.

PHASE 2:
 In March 2011, NEPes were commissioned by the East Midlands NHS Sustainable
Development Network to deliver the ‘Energy in Estates’ Phase II pilot.
 To date, this pilot has effectively supported a number of healthcare organisations with
the assessment and integration of sustainable energy technologies across a range of
buildings and different healthcare settings throughout the region.
 The types of technology covered by the pilot, which have also determine its distinct
delivery strands, have been:
a) Smart metering,
b) Voltage optimisation, and
c) Renewable energy assessment (REA), which is the focus of this report.
 The key aim of the REA element of the pilot was to provide support to healthcare
organisations across the region to ensure that they identified and wherever possible
realised the full benefits derived from installing renewable energy solutions in their
buildings.
 This overall aim was designed to be met through two key objectives:
1. To conduct 16 site surveys across East Midlands healthcare organisations, to assess
the feasibility of renewable energy solutions and to make site-specific
recommendations which encourage the uptake of these technologies wherever
feasible and relevant.
2. To produce technical reports covering structural, design, connection and planning
considerations, highlighting the different stages involved in commissioning
renewable energy solutions, and providing the outline costs and savings identified
for each site.
 In order to measure the pilot’s success in meeting the above objectives, six key
performance indicators (KPIs) were agreed. These KPIs are featured in full in Table 1.
 Despite the mostly quantitative nature of the pilot’s KPIS, both quantitative and
qualitative data from primary and secondary sources have been collated, analysed and
monitored throughout the pilot, to ensure that its recommendations are replicable,
practical and understandable to those who may take them forward. See section 1.3. for
a description of the datasets used and the assumptions made in analysing these.
 Overall, the REA element of the pilot has succeeded in meeting –and in several cases,
exceeding– the objectives set against its delivery. This is evidenced by the assessment
of performance to date against the pilot’s KPIs, summarised in Table 1, and described in
full under section 4.

2012, NEP Energy Services Ltd, part of the charity Nottingham Energy Partnership (NEP), established in 1997. 7
1.2. Summary of performance against KPIs
Table 1: Summary of performance against the EM CRP Phase II REA pilot Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) (Source: NEP, 2012).
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR (KPI) PERFORMANCE TO DATE (21/02/12)
1. Number of sites (out of 16)
identified as being suitable for
renewable energy.
Total number of sites assessed as part of the REA element of the pilot: 31. Out of which:
 16x sites were identified as suitable for renewable energy systems.
 1x site was found to be not suitable for renewable energy systems.
 14x sites were assessed which either already had or was in the process of having renewable energy systems
installed before the 31/03/12. The renewable energy output and the potential carbon savings from these 14
sites have been excluded from the calculation of performance against KPIs 2 and 3, so as to avoid any double-
counting, given that these systems were already installed or ‘in the pipeline’.
2. Capacity of renewable energy
supported to progress to install.
 Total net capacity of the renewable energy systems assessed: 469 kWp.
 Total annual output of the renewable energy systems assessed: 380,864 kWh p.a.
3. Total potential annual CO2 savings
of capacity supported to progress (in
kgCO2).
 Total annual CO2 savings averaged over the next 25 years, calculated by applying a carbon factor of 0.2521
kgCO2e per kWh to the annual output of all the renewable energy systems assessed: 96,013 kgCO2e p.a. See 3.
 Total mitigated social cost of carbon derived from the energy output of all RES assessed: £2,151.
4. Total potential financial revenue +
savings from supported systems
(annual and whole life cycle NPV
cost/saving over 25 year FIT lifespan).
Total potential financial income (i.e. revenue and savings combined) from the output of the renewable
energy systems assessed ranges between £77,259 and £163,921 p.a., and depends on the Feed-in-Tariff
scenario which applies at the time of the systems being commissioned. For a full analysis into each of
these scenarios, together with the potential annual income estimated for each pilot partner, see Tables 6 and 7.
5. Payback period and IRR for
investment in each case.
Payback periods for the renewable energy systems assessed start as little as 7.7 years. There is a wide range of
payback periods between this figure and all the way to 24 years, as these depend on the Feed-in-Tariff scenario
which applies at the time of the systems being commissioned. For a full analysis into each of these scenarios,
together with the likely payback period for each pilot Partner’s systems, see Table 6.
6. Capacity of systems supported
installed or likely to be installed within
next 12 months.
The Government’s Comprehensive Review of the Feed-In-Tariff regime3
has fully coincided with the
implementation of this pilot. The implications of this Review, including substantial cuts to the FITs income rates
(with subsequent doubling of payback periods) together with changes to eligibility, have discouraged most of the
partners from progressing to system installation stage. To date, this has had an important impact on the delivery
of outcomes against this KPI, but that is not to say that the proposed installations will not occur in the future.
Furthermore, the financial savings achieved (see section 5.) should be considered as a counterbalance to this.
3
Further information on FITs and the Review can be found at: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/Renewable_ener/feedin_tariff/feedin_tariff.aspx

82012, NEP Energy Services Ltd, part of the charity Nottingham Energy Partnership (NEP), established in 1997.
1.3. Data, information sources and assumptions made
An interpretation of data, information sources and factors used to arrive at the energy, carbon and
financial figures summarised in Table 1, together with assumptions made when analysing these, can
be found below. These are further described from a methodological point of view under section 3.
ENERGY CALCULATIONS INCLUDING SAVINGS:
 Once engaged in the pilot, each partner organisation was advised on how to best put forward a
selection of their sites for renewable energy assessment. This support was carried out via
telephone, email and in person communications by NEPes. The data provided by each partner
organisation included site name and full address, if renewable energy systems were already
installed on-site, and wherever possible, total annual site energy demand/use.
 A desktop feasibility survey was then carried out for each site. This was conducted using PVSol
Expert 5.04
, a modeling and design software tool which identified the specific renewable energy
potential for each particular location, using geographical, energy and financial variables, all of
which could be manually altered to ensure that the assessment were fully bespoke to each site.
 Although the Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP 2009) was used in several cases as a
comparative tool, given that the latter is a generic assessment method and hence may not
account for local, site-specific variables, the final results from all desktop assessments were
based on PVSol modeling specific to each site.
 The results from all desktop surveys were written into ‘Renewable Energy Opportunities’ (REO)
desktop assessment reports, which included a number of proposed systems, including different
outline system designs, potential installed capacities, and modelled system energy outputs and
yields.
 All REO desktop assessment reports included a cautionary recommendation that although their
content was of sufficient detail to inform decision-making around investing in renewable energy
systems, they should not be used as the sole basis for a full business case. For this reason, it was
recommended that a site-specific, physical assessment was carried out prior to committing
finance to the development of these technologies, as it is usually at this stage that particularly
important issues arise, such as localised shading and structural integrity of the roof when
considering solar PV systems, or in the case of wind turbines, proximity to nearby buildings.
 The desktop assessment reports were disseminated to each of the partners in advance, so that
they could maximise the learnings and consider the recommendations for installation early on.
 Within the scope of the project, some capacity was identified to provide a selection of the sites
with a further physical site survey to complement their desktop feasibility survey, as
recommended above. The results of the latter surveys were written into an Energy Survey
report, which were also distributed to each of the partners. These physical surveys have added
significant value to the outcomes of the project, which is further described under section 5.
4
http://www.solardesign.co.uk/pvsol-expert.php

CARBON CALCULATIONS INCLUDING SAVINGS:
 All carbon emission savings were assumed to be a direct result of reducing site grid-electricity
demand and substituting this by zero-carbon, on-site renewable electricity generation.
 All carbon emission savings were calculated using national best practice carbon accounting
methodologies based on the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, informed by the latest DEFRA guidance5
.
 Consideration of the total social cost of carbon, measured in £ per tCO2e, was also given in each
assessment.
FINANCIAL CALCULATIONS INCLUDING SAVINGS:
 Financial calculations on the potential annual income generation, estimated savings from utility
bills and likely payback periods were modelled using PVSol and then complemented by further
site-specific manual analysis and modelling.
 The calculations undertaken with PVSol used a discount rate of 3% on capital.
 Each site’s assessment also included a Net Present Value (NPV) calculation based on a 25 year
lifespan of the proposed investment.
 For each site assessment, a set of financial analyses were carried out based on the four different
scenarios that the different Feed-In-Tariff (FITs) rates6
currently pose, with regards to calculating
savings and paybacks derived from the income to be made from eligible renewable energy
generation. These are:
(A) Financial analysis with a ‘Fast adoption’ FITs rates scenario: Uses the current generation
tariff rates, for which all systems fully commissioned, MCS-registered, and confirmed to have
applied successfully for FITs income with a FITs Licensee body before the 3rd
March 2012, are
eligible7
.
(B) Financial analysis with a ‘Second wave’ FITs rates scenario: Uses the new generation tariff
rates, applicable to all systems with an eligibility date on or after 3rd
March 2012, which will
come into effect on 1st
April 2012. These new rates have been recently published as part of
the Government’s response to the consultation on the Comprehensive Review Phase I8
.
(C) Financial analysis with a ‘Multi-installation’ FITs rates scenario: Uses the new multi-
installation tariff rates, applicable to generators (i.e. organisations generating renewable
energy on-site) with more than 25 solar PV installations9
.
5
www.defra.gov.uk/environment/economy/business-efficiency/reporting/
6
www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/energy_mix/renewable/feedin_tariff/feedin_tariff.aspx
7
www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/Consultations/fits-review/4312-feed-in-tariff-review-phase-i-gov-response-.pdf
8
www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/consultations/fits_comp_rev1/fits_comp_rev1.aspx
9
www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/consultations/fits_comp_rev1/fits_comp_rev1.aspx

(D) Financial analysis with an ‘EPC rating <D’ FITs rates scenario: Uses the new energy efficiency
requirement, by which buildings in which a solar PV system is installed, and which fail to
achieve an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) rating of D or above within 12 months from
the 1st
April 2012, would qualify for a reduced FITs generation rate of 9ppkWh regardless of
system size.
Table 2: Summary of Feed-In-Tariff rates used in each of the financial scenarios used (Source: NEP, 2012).
FEED-IN-TARIFF RATE SCENARIOS
Size and type of renewable
energy
‘Fast adoption’
(ppkWh
generated)
‘Second wave’
(ppkWh
generated)
‘Multi-
installation’
(ppkWh
generated)
‘EPC rating <D’
(ppkWh
generated)Solar photovoltaic (PV)
<4kW (retrofit) 43.3 21 16.8 9
>4kW-10kW 37.8 16.8 13.4 9
>10-50kW 32.9 15.2 12.2 9
>50-100kW 19 12.9 10.3 9
>150-250kW 15 12.9 10.3 9
Export tariff 3.1
Wind All scenarios (ppkWh generated)
1.5kW to <15kW 28
 In order to calculate the potential cost reduction from electricity bills as a result of renewable
energy generation on-site, which are included in the potential annual income calculation, the
following assumptions have been made:
Partner / site Supplied electricity price
(ppkWh)
All except (9) NUH 10*
(9) NUH 9**
*10ppkWh is a typical cost per unit of supplied electricity in the NHS.
**9ppkWh was used in the calculation of the NUH site solar PV system feasibility assessment, as it was
supplied by the Trust as their current average supplied electricity cost.
 It should be noted that, as mentioned earlier, both generation and export FITs rates are RPI-
linked, and therefore, all calculations on FITs revenue included in these assessments are likely to
change post-April 2012 and annually thereafter, when the FITs are updated nationally to
account for inflation.
 Unless stated in the site-specific renewable energy opportunities assessment reports, the
analyses have used a conservative estimate of energy price inflation of 2.55%. It is important to
note that energy price inflation could be considerably higher than this in the future, which will
affect both the payback, the Net Present Value (NPV) and the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of
the results we have calculated.

“The end of learning is action, not knowledge”. Peter Honey1.4. Action learning approach
Action learning is a process which involves working on real challenges, using the knowledge and
skills of a small group of people combined with skilled questioning, to re-interpret old and familiar
concepts and produce fresh ideas10
.
As agreed at the start of Phase II of the EM NHS CRP, an action learning approach was employed
throughout the delivery of this pilot, to ensure that its outcomes would be directly informed by real-
life examples and lessons from the ground, making them truly pragmatic and replicable.
This approach is evidenced as follows:
 Early discussions with the East Midlands NHS Sustainable Development Network11
informed the
project’s preliminary steps, in terms of confirming the direction, scope, and format of delivery.
 An informative, 2-page project overview brochure (see Appendix 1) was produced and
disseminated widely throughout the region, to promote the project’s key aims and to help
engage relevant members of the local health community. This was accompanied by a brief form
(see Appendix 2), to enable the collation of baseline data from each of the potential partners.
 With the help of the Network’s publicity and the circulation of the two documents mentioned
above, all pilot partners were identified early on so that support provision would be prioritised
effectively and successfully.
 All pilot partners were kept closely informed and engaged throughout the pilot’s duration, via
email, telephone and in person communications.
 The thoughts, feedback and personal experience of all participating organisations were pro-
actively sought throughout. In this way, partners often made valuable contributions which
helped to tailor both the support provided throughout the pilot and the development of
resources to be disseminated thereafter. Appendices 3, 4 and 5 are examples of the latter.
 The desktop assessment reports produced as part of the pilot were disseminated to each of the
partners as soon as they were completed, to ensure that partners would learn from and
consider bespoke recommendations for installation at their sites. This avoided the risk posed by
waiting to the end of the project to disseminate all reports as a final, packaged product, which
could have risked losing the momentum and interest gained by the partners early on.
 The uncertainty generated by the continuous changes to the national FITs regime –which
peaked in the middle of the pilot’s delivery period, in the form of a Government national
consultation proposing deep changes to the whole scheme–, coupled with the financial and
strategic pressures faced by healthcare organisations, were the two main barriers affecting this
pilot’s delivery. For this reason, all assessment reports took into account a range of financial
scenarios with clearly defined variables, to enable partners to fully understand how the FITs
changes could affect their potential investment, and hence, build more realistic business cases.
10
http://www.actionlearningassociates.co.uk/actionlearning.html
11
Such as those held during the EM NHS CRP Phase II Workshop, 15/06/11, Nottingham. Details available at:
http://www.emphasisnetwork.org.uk/networks/sd/event15june2011.htm

“Investing in the energy efficiency and
resilience of the estate is particularly
important in view of the current supply
climate, escalating fuel costs and the
potential impact of ‘peak oil’. Switching
to low carbon forms of energy, such as
renewables helps to guarantee supply
and reduce the carbon footprint of the
estate”.
NHS Sustainable Development Unit.
“The NHS cannot address its impact on
climate change alone. It needs to work
with partners nationally, regionally and
especially locally in order to develop and
promote renewable energy sources,
sustainable transport for staff and
patients and the procurement of goods
and services that are sustainable and low
carbon”.
1.5. Health and wellbeing benefits
Every 24 hours, 1.3 million NHS employees use thousands of buildings in hundreds of health
centres, surgeries and hospitals nationwide to see and treat nearly 1 million patients12
. By doing so,
healthcare buildings in England consume over £410 million worth of energy annually. This use of
energy constitutes an increasingly important area of spend for the NHS. It is also responsible for
significantly contributing to climate change through the release of 3.8 million tonnes of carbon
every year.
The latter is of crucial importance as climate change
has been identified as the biggest threat to global
health13
. Its effects on the health and wellbeing of the
general population are already being experienced on a
widespread scale, as a result of the increased
occurrence of extreme weather events such as
flooding and heat waves, and over the coming decades
will put millions of lives at risk.
The steep rise in market energy prices, coupled with
the current economic recession, only add to the above
threats by increasing the risk of people falling into fuel
poverty, which is evidenced to have serious detrimental
impacts on public and mental health.
Installing renewable energy solutions at healthcare sites not only brings benefits to those who own,
operate and use these sites. Healthcare organisations work at the very heart of the communities
which they serve. As a result, they are uniquely placed to lead by example and inspire others to also
act as good corporate citizens and use innovation to improve performance and service delivery.
Renewable energy technologies can provide a physical
representation of the commitment that healthcare
organisations make to operate in more sustainable
ways, sending a strong message to service users,
patients, staff, visitors and other stakeholders, and
providing a symbol for the local community.
Furthermore, having a visual, working example of
sustainability in the built environment can inspire
other public sector organisations and partners to
explore their own potential to install these types of
systems, and to collaborate with others to do so.
By identifying and helping to maximise the potential for healthcare sites to generate their own
energy from renewable sources, this pilot has developed local examples of good practice, which
when put into practice will minimise the regional healthcare’s contribution to climate change, help
organisations to become more energy cost-resilient, and support the enhancement of the health
and wellbeing of society in and beyond the East Midlands.
12
http://www.sdu.nhs.uk/documents/publications/1234888949_zfGK_energy_and_carbon_management.pdf
13
http://www.thelancet.com/climate-change

2. KEY OBJECTIVES
With an annual budget of over £100 billion, 1.4 million employees and the largest property portfolio
in Europe, there is no doubt that the NHS is uniquely placed to make a big difference in the context
of sustainability and carbon reduction, both at an organisational and at a national level.
The vast NHS estate mentioned above occupies a total floor area of 25 million square meters14
, 50%
of which was built before 1985 and 35% pre-dating the 1970s energy crisis15
. These buildings, by
providing healthcare services, traditionally bring together a wide range of energy intensive activities
and processes, and often have long hours of operation. All of these factors contribute towards the
national NHS spending ~£500-600m on its annual energy bills, a cost which despite widespread
investments in energy efficiency across NHS buildings is on the rise.
The NHS is not alone in this, as energy is becoming an increasingly expensive commodity across the
UK. The Government’s Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (ofgem) have generated several
scenarios for energy price increases over the coming years, the worst of which points to a 60% rise
by 201616
, a situation potentially amplified by the coming impact of peak oil.
To buckle the above trends, and to ensure the future delivery of quality healthcare services, there is
an urgent need for all healthcare organisations to go beyond good energy management and look at
innovation, which includes the potential to generate their own energy from cleaner and more
resilient sources. Investing in renewable energy technologies will mean that, as the cost of energy
rises in coming years, the total cost of providing essential energy services to healthcare premises
such as lighting and powering equipment will not drain on the budgets set for delivering frontline
services.
In addition to the above financial and resource drivers, there is also a strong environmental case for
investing in these technologies.
A recent analysis carried out by the NHS Sustainable Development Unit (SDU) established the total
annual carbon footprint of the NHS in England as 20 million tonnes (MtCO2e). It also found that
19%17
of these carbon emissions arise from energy use in healthcare buildings, as represented in
figure 1.
Figure 1: Update to the NHS England overall
carbon footprint (Source: NHS SDU Sustainability
in the NHS: Health Check 2012).
14
Source: CRe Associates.
15
Source: ARUP.
16
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Markets/WhlMkts/Discovery/Documents1/Discovery_Scenarios_ConDoc_FINAL.pdf
17
NHS SDU (2012). ‘Sustainability in the NHS: Health Check 2012’. Available at:
http://www.sdu.nhs.uk/documents/publications/Health_Check_Carbon_Footprint_2012.pdf

“The size of the NHS (especially its
collaborative buying power) means it
should be an active partner in stimulating
this inevitable transition towards
renewables.
At an organisational level, there should be
routine and regular reviews of the
potential for increasing the use of
renewable energy. This should include the
use of renewable energy generated onsite,
near onsite or offsite”.
Being responsible for 25% of all public sector greenhouse gas emissions in England places a strong
expectation on the NHS to take urgent action to minimise its carbon footprint, and in doing so,
contribute towards meeting the national Climate Change Act targets, as illustrated in figure 2.
Figure 2: Breakdown of
the NHS England carbon
footprint 2010 (Source:
NHS SDU Sustainability
in the NHS: Health
Check 2012).
The SDU analysis shows that healthcare buildings’ energy use emissions have started to decreased
nationally, with the move from coal and oil to a greater reliance on gas, and that overall, the NHS
England carbon footprint has stopped rising and is starting to level off. This is promising as it
constitutes a step in the right direction, but as shown in figure 2, meeting the steep carbon
reduction targets set for the coming decades will still prove a significant challenge to the NHS, and
therefore, innovative means by which to meet future energy demands should be considered now.
The NHS in the East Midlands reflects the national
picture. Healthcare in the region is responsible for
emitting ~1m tonnes of carbon each year, with energy
use in buildings accounting for 27% of this footprint, or
289,000tCO2e. The regional NHS spends £53,132,159
each year on energy bills, and again, this figure is rising.
This pilot has aimed to make a direct contribution
towards meeting the above challenges, by delivering
the key objectives described below.
Table 3: Summary of objectives for the REA element of
the EM NHS CRP Phase II ‘Energy in NHS Estates’ pilot
(Source: NEP, 2012).
SUMMARY OF OBJECTIVES
(Renewable Energy Assessment element of ‘Energy in NHS Estates’ Phase II pilot)
KEY
OBJECTIVES
 Conduct surveys of 16 sites across a number of EM NHS Trusts, making
recommendations for feasibility of renewable energy solutions.
 Production of survey reports addressing structural, design, electrical connection
and planning issues, outline costs, and savings.
WIDER
AIMS
 Proportional representation from different healthcare delivery settings i.e.
acute, mental health, primary care, general practice, community, etc.
 Broad geographical sample of partners from across the region.
 Assessment of a range of renewable energy solutions.

3. METHODOLOGY
Table 4: Description of the methodology employed in the Renewable Energy Assessment element of the pilot (Source: NEP, 2012).
FACTOR / AREA DESCRIPTION REFERENCES
Net Present
Value (NPV)
(£)
o Net Present Value (NPV) refers to the total value of the investment over its lifetime (total potential income –
total costs), in this case, discounted over 25 years.
o As a general rule of thumb, a higher the NPV indicates a more attractive investment; if the NPV is negative this
indicates a net cost over time and therefore not a worthwhile investment.
o The total potential income has been calculated using the financial analysis with a ‘Second wave’ FITs rates
scenario. See Table 2 for the FITs rates breakdown and Table 7 for the NPV values for each investment.
PVSol Expert 5.0. Available at:
http://www.solardesign.co.uk/pvsol-
expert.php
Likely payback
period
(years)
o The payback period refers to the amount of time taken for a proposed measure to break even, taking into
account the initial and ongoing operational and maintenance expenditures.
o For all solar PV systems assessed, the payback period calculated is likely to be a conservative estimation as the
annual income will increase over time due to the rising costs of supplied electricity which have been avoided
by the system’s own electricity generation, as well as the increasing FITs rates which are RPI-linked.
o The likely payback period was calculated as:
[ Total cost (1) / Total potential income (2) ]
(1) Total cost (£) = Estimated initial net capital investment / net outlay cost + Total lifetime operational costs
(please note that for all solar PV systems assessed, a £250 annual maintenance cost was assumed).
(2) Total potential income (£) = Year 1 estimated annual bill reduction (based on 10ppkWh or 9 ppkWh, see 1.3.) +
Year 1 modeled annual FITs revenue.
(3) Total potential income over 25 years = estimated annual bill reduction over 25 years + annual FITs income over
25 years (inflation rates have been applied to these income and savings over 25 years)
expert.php
DECC FITs portal:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content
/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/energ
y_mix/renewable/feedin_tariff/feedi
n_tariff.aspx
Potential annual
income
(£)
Yield / Internal
Rate of Return
(IRR)
(%)
o In each of the analyses carried out as part of this pilot, the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) was calculated
automatically by the PVSol modeling and design tool used for assessing site-specific renewable energy
potential.
o Internal Rate of Return (IRR, also known as yield) is a method used in capital budgeting to measure and
compare the profitability of investments.
o IRR is a discounting method used to evaluate the profitability and efficiency of an investment. It is equivalent
to the interest rate received for an investment consisting of payments (negative values) and income (positive
values) that occur at regular periods.
o This technique can be used to compare potential investment opportunities, as the higher the IRR the more
attractive the investment. With the previous statement in mind, and with regards to the renewable energy
solutions identified as suitable within the pilot, an IRR of 10.5% would be a more desirable investment than
one of 3.5%.
expert.php
IRR as an investment appraisal
technique:
http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdo
tg/action/detail?itemId=1081822890
&type=RESOURCES

o This also applies to the equivalent returns which the costs of the capital investment would obtain if they were
invested in a savings account, over the same period of time.
Discount rate
(%)
o We applied a 2.55% discount rate to NPV analyses of the systems assessed. This is set to show how the
investments perform vs inflation. We also used 2.55% for averaged inflation over 25 years. We decided not to
assess returns available vs an alternative investment, or risk, though a higher discount rate could be applied to
determine whether these systems outperform against alternative uses for capital.
expert.php
System net
capacity (kWp)
o Site-specific assessments for all sites were carried out using desktop feasibility surveys.
o Total system net capacity and output was modelled using PVSol Expert 5.0.
o Some sites also benefitted from a physical site survey to complement their desktop assessment.
o All findings were written into reports and disseminated to partners so that they could make use of them early
expert.php
System annual
output (kWh)
Annual carbon
savings (kgCO2e)
o In order to show a truly representative model of the lifetime carbon savings of the renewable energy potential
assessed in this project, and taking into account the projected falls in grid carbon intensity over the systems’
lifetime, an average carbon emissions factor was employed.
o This factor, 0.2521 kgCO2e per kWh, was based on Government projections on the grid decarbonisation
trajectory over the next 25 years, and consists on the average emissions factor for projected electricity carbon
intensity between 2012 and 2036 i.e. 25 years, which is the minimum likely lifetime of the renewable energy
systems identified in the project.
o The factor was employed at the end of the project to arrive at the total annual carbon savings averaged over
25 years (i.e. KPI 3), applied to the total renewable energy output of the systems.
See Table 1: Electricity emissions
factors to 2100, kgCO2/kWh. DECC
(2011). Toolkit for guidance on
valuation of energy use. Available at:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content
/cms/about/ec_social_res/iag_guida
nce/iag_guidance.aspx
Social Cost of
Carbon
(£ per tCO2e)
o The social cost of carbon is an economic approach used to quantify the marginal cost of climate change
impacts, i.e. what direct and indirect effects of an additional tonne of carbon will have on the climate and
society over time and what the financial consequences of these will be.
o This typically includes impacts such as water availability, coastal protection and the effect on agriculture and
energy requirements due to global temperature rises caused by greenhouse gases.
o There are different approaches and uses for monetising carbon, one of which is for policy purposes to help the
government meet its national reduction targets. This is referred to as the shadow price of carbon. In the
context of this pilot, however, the social cost of carbon method is adopted to quantify the damage caused to
the environment and society and is used as an indication of the health and wellbeing impacts.
o There has been extensive research in this field resulting in different methodological approaches, however
using the most sophisticated model the figure utilised within this analysis is £22.4 per tonnes CO2e.
o This figure enables the reader to quantify the negative externalities of greenhouse gases on society that are
prevented through the potential installations of renewable technology discussed in this pilot.
o It is worth noting that this figure is consistent with the value of £22tCO2e for traded sectors such as electricity,
provided in recent DECC guidance.
Eyre et al (1999), as cited in Clarkson
& Deyes (2002). See:
http://www.hm-
treasury.gov.uk/d/scc.pdf
DECC (2011). A brief guide to the
carbon valuation methodology for
UK policy appraisal. Available at:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/publication
s/basket.aspx?filetype=4&filepath=1
1%2fcutting-emissions%2fcarbon-
valuation%2f3136-guide-carbon-
valuation-
methodology.pdf&minwidth=true#b
asket

4. RESULTS
The following tables summarise the full results stemming from the delivery of the pilot’s REA element, including all surveys and analyses’ outputs.
Table 5: Support provided to EM CRP Phase II REA pilot partners (Source: NEP, 2012).
Pilot
partner
Type of
healthcare
delivery setting
Type of
renewable
energy assessed
Number
of sites
assessed
Survey
conducted
Report
written up
Support
provided
Installed / likely be
installed in the
next 12 months?
1. NHS Nottinghamshire County Primary care Solar PV 6    6x systems
installed (existing)
2. NHS Lincolnshire Solar PV 1    TBC
3. Lincolnshire Community NHS Health
Services
Community
provision
Solar PV 2    TBC
4. Lincolnshire Partnership NHS
Foundation Trust
Mental health Solar PV 4    TBC
5. Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust Solar PV 1    TBC
6. Derbyshire Healthcare NHS
Foundation Trust
Air Source Heat
Pump (ASHP)
1    1x unit installed
(existing)
7. Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS
Trust (A)
Solar PV 7    8x systems
installed (new)
8. Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS
Trust (B)
Wind 1    No
9. Nottingham University Hospitals
NHS Trust
Acute Solar PV 1    No
10. Queenswood Care Home Care home Solar PV 1    TBC
11. Laura Chambers Lodge Care Home Solar PV 1    TBC
12. Wren Hall Nursing Home Solar PV 1    TBC
13. Cherry Trees Resource Centre Solar PV 1    TBC
14. Earls Barton Medical Centre GP Solar PV 1    TBC
15. King Edward Road Surgery Solar PV 1    TBC
16. Charnwood Surgery Solar PV 1    TBC
TOTALS 31 31 31 31 See Table 1.

Table 6: Full energy, carbon and financial analysis of all site renewable energy assessments (Source: NEP, 2012).
PILOT
PARTNER 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 TOTALS
ENERGY
ANALYSIS
System net
capacity (kWp)
24.9 15.54 11.47 27 49.82 n/a 45 5 250 9.87 9.88 14.57 50 7.8 9.87 8.46 469
System annual
output (kWh)
22,031 11,159 8,713 20,385 41,297 n/a 36,300 12,900 199,664 7,917 7,534 11,612 38,485 6,331 8,427 6,440 380,864
CARBON
ANALYSIS
Annual carbon
savings
(kgCO2e)
5,554 2,813 2,196 5,139 10,411 n/a 9,151 3,252 50,335 1,996 1,899 2,927 9,702 1,596 2,124 1,623 96,013
Social cost of
carbon
(£ per tCO2e)
124.41 63 49.2 115.1 233.2 n/a 205 72.85 1,128 44.7 42.5 65.6 217.3 35.8 47.6 36.37 2,151
FINANCIAL
ANALYSIS
(A)
Potential annual
income (£)
7,972 5,339 4,171 9,725 17,578 n/a 27,208 4,998 47,919 3,932 3,750 4,974 16,468 3,003 3,806 3,078 £163,921
Likely payback
period (years)
n/a 11.3 10.7 10.5 8.8 n/a 33 5 10 8.2 8.9 10.2 8.4 7.7 8.5 10.5 -
IRR (%) n/a 9.6 10.7 10.9 12.7 n/a 31 21.9 11.1 12.7 12.8 11 13.4 13.6 12.1 10.7 -
FINANCIAL
ANALYSIS
(B)
Potential annual
income (£)
n/a 3,368 2,630 6,127 10,282 n/a 15,844 n/a 43,726 2,274 2,169 2,922 9,666 1,684 2,042 1,726 £104,460
Likely payback
period (years)
n/a 18.5 17.8 17.1 16 n/a 53 n/a 11 15.7 17.20 19.2 15.2 15.5 18 21.6 -
IRR (%) n/a 5 5.6 5.9 6.30 n/a 17 n/a 10.3 6.2 5.80 4.9 6.9 6.3 5 4 -
FINANCIAL
ANALYSIS
(C)
Potential annual
income (£)
n/a 3,033 2,369 5,517 9,047 n/a 14,638 n/a 38,535 2,006 1,913 2,574 8,513 1,470 1,756 1,507 £92,878
Likely payback
period (years)
n/a 20.8 20 19.2 18.70 n/a 60 n/a 12 18.4 20.2 22.5 17.6 18.6 22 >24 -
IRR (%) n/a 4.1 4.6 5 5 n/a 14 n/a 9.3 4.9 4.5 3.6 5.6 4.9 3.6 0 -
FINANCIAL
ANALYSIS
(D)
Potential annual
income (£)
n/a 2,676 2,090 4,867 7,728 n/a 9,633 n/a 35,939 1,658 1,581 n/a 7,283 1,194 1,386 1,224 £77,259
Likely payback
period (years)
n/a 23.9 23 21.9 22.6 n/a 69 n/a 13 23.6 >24 n/a 21.2 >24 >24 >24 -
IRR (%) n/a 3 3.5 3.8 3.6 n/a 10 n/a 8.84 3.10 0 n/a 4.1 0 0 0 -
Note: The financial analyses (A-D) have been calculated based on the four different scenarios that the different Feed-In-Tariff (FITs) rates currently pose with regards to
calculating savings and paybacks derived from the income to be made from eligible renewable energy generation. Please refer to sections 1.3. and 3. for a full description of
the different variables, factors and calculations employed to arrive at the above energy, carbon and financial figures.

Table 7: Breakdown of calculated net outlay cost versus Net Present Value (NPV) over 25 year lifespan of renewable energy solutions (NEP, 2012).
*The aim of the support provided to this pilot partner was to assess the post-installation performance of 6x solar PV systems, as opposed to conducting a financial viability
assessment. Therefore, the NPV was not calculated in this instance, as it was not relevant to the assessment carried out.
** The aim of the support provided to this pilot partner was to assess the efficiency of the Air Sourced Heat Pump (ASHP) system already operating at one of this partner’s
sites. Therefore, the NPV was not calculated in this instance, as it was not relevant to the assessment carried out.
*** The aim of the support provided to this pilot partner was to provide advice, guidance and support in order to maximise the Feed-In-Tariff (FITs) income to the partner
resulting from the 8x solar PV systems in the process of being installed during the pilot’s duration.
****This particular assessment looked at the wind generation potential of a partner’s site. Since the original scope of this element of the pilot included financial, technical
and environmental assessment of just solar PV systems, no tools were made available to enable us to calculate the NPV in this instance.
*****In this case, the support provided to the partner consisted on adjusting the financial calculations carried out by another private consultancy, to include the new FITs
and implications of SAP 2009. Hence, since the original financial calculations for this solar PV assessment were being produced by another organisation, the NPV was not
calculated in this instance.
****** The total potential income (over 25 years) has been calculated using the financial analysis with a ‘Second wave’ FITs rates scenario. The total potential
income over 25 years equals the estimated annual bill reduction over 25 years + annual FITs income over 25 years (please note that inflation rates have been
applied to all of these income and savings calculations over 25 years).
Pilot
partner
Total likely capital investment
/ net outlay cost (£)
Total likely income 25
years (£)******2.55%
disc. rate
Net Present Value (NPV)
over 25 years(£)-2.55% disc. rate
1. NHS Nottinghamshire County* N/A N/A N/A
2. NHS Lincolnshire £58,541 £62,105 £3,564
3. Lincolnshire Community NHS Health Services £44,316 £52,898 £8,582
4. Lincolnshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust £98,707 £107,698 £8,991
5. Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust £143,849 £208,730 £64,881
6. Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust** N/A N/A N/A
7. Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (A)*** N/A N/A N/A
8. Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (B)**** N/A N/A N/A
9. Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust***** N/A N/A N/A
10. Queenswood Care Home £31,787 £41,251 £9,464
11. Laura Chambers Lodge Care Home £33,005 £40,962 £7,957
12. Wren Hall Nursing Home £48,043 £58,936 £10,893
13. Cherry Trees Resource Centre £129,133 £195,440 £66,307
14. Earls Barton Medical Centre £23,671 £32,965 £9,294
15. King Edward Road Surgery £31,767 £43,713 £11,946
16. Charnwood Surgery £31,425 £35,040 £3,615

5. VALUE ADDED OUTCOMES
Throughout the delivery of this pilot, NEP has strived to provide both the partners supported and
the SHA with added value whenever and wherever possible. Some of the main examples of the
pilot’s value-added outcomes are summarised below:
 Securing £235,875 of FITs income over 25 years: NEP helped to secure £105,000 of FITs
income for NHS Nottinghamshire County and £130,875 for Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS
Trust, which will be generated by each trust over the next 25 years. This financial benefit was
enabled by advising, guiding and closely supporting these two partner trusts to complete and
submit their applications for FITs income in advance of the 12th
December 2011 and 3rd
March 2012 cut-off deadlines. If this support had not been provided by NEP through this
pilot, it is likely that this additional income would have been lost, since later applications
would have been eligible for significantly reduced FITs rates.
 Saving £1,200 on planning application fees: NEP helped Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS
Trust to save £1,200 by avoiding unnecessary planning application fees for 7 out of the 8
solar PV systems it was in the process of installing throughout the pilot’s delivery period. By
liaising closely with the planning teams of local authorities on behalf of this partner trust, NEP
clarified that only 1 site was required to submit an application for planning permission, and
that 7 other sites did not so long as certain installation conditions were met, as the latter
would be covered by Permitted Development Rights. If this support had not been provided
by NEP through this pilot, it is likely that the Trust would have applied for planning
permission for all of the proposed installations as a precautionary measure, which would
have resulted in paying £1,200 of unnecessary fees, and using considerable NHS staff time
and efforts in the process. This could have also delayed the process of installing before the
FITs cut-off deadlines, and therefore, jeopardised securing the highest FITs rate possible.
 Production of additional energy efficiency audits reports: Within the scope of this pilot, NEP
identified some capacity to provide a selection of the sites with a physical site survey in
addition to their renewable energy assessment. The results of these additional surveys were
written into energy efficiency audit reports, which provided site-specific recommendations
on non-renewable energy measures such as insulation and glazing, together with the energy,
cost and carbon savings they could result in. These additional surveys were distributed to
each of the partners throughout the pilot to encourage early implementation of the
measures recommended.
 Linking to wider initiatives and crossover with other Phase II pilots: The Cherry Trees
Resource Centre and Queenswood Care Home were supported through the EM NHS CRP
Phase II ‘Sustainable Care Homes’ (pilot 3). These two care homes were also partners in the
Energy in NHS Estates ‘REA’ element (pilot 1a), and as such, were assessed for their
renewable energy potential. Moreover, the solar PV system identified as a potential
installation at Queenswood Care Home was put forward in the Greening Beeston project.
 Replicability: NEP carefully documented the process of supporting this pilot’s partners. The
lessons and feedback gained have been used to produce bespoke, independent guidance and
examples of good practice, and incorporated these into the pilot’s outcomes as appendices
and annexes. This way, any healthcare organisation will be able to use these to carry out
further renewable energy assessments, installations and/or FITs claims across their own sites.

“All NHS organisations should create a strategic
plan to develop resilient and more renewable
energy sources to ensure a guaranteed energy
supply, whilst managing their overall carbon
footprint”.
NHS Sustainable Development Unit, 2009.
6. CONCLUSIONS
 The recommendations of Phase I of the EM NHS Carbon Reduction Project highlighted a
huge opportunity for NHS organisations in the region to generate their own electricity from
renewable sources, and in doing so, create an income stream from Feed-in-Tariff revenue18
.
 This pilot has effectively put this key recommendation into practice, by quantifying the
extent to which East Midlands healthcare organisations could benefit from installing
renewable energy solutions across their buildings.
 In doing so, this pilot has identified the significant financial and environmental savings that
installing these technologies could bring to East Midlands healthcare organisations and the
wider community in which they operate, summarised below:
 A total annual carbon saving potential of 96,013 kgCO2e;
 A total annual energy saving potential of 380,864 kWh;
 A total annual financial saving potential of between £77,259 and £163,921.
 The assessment of some renewable energy systems already operating across the region has
demonstrated that, in many cases, these are outperforming energy generation predictions,
which is an encouraging finding19
. Furthermore, in the case of at least four Nottinghamshire
health centres, ~10% of the site’s total electricity demand is now met by their on-site solar
PV system, making them less dependent on grid-supplied electricity, and therefore, more
resilient to electricity market price rises.
 The uncertainty generated by the continuous changes to the national FITs regime, coupled
with the financial and strategic pressures that healthcare organisations are currently facing,
have been the two main barriers preventing many of the pilot partners to progress through
to the physical installation of the renewable energy systems identified.
 Notwithstanding the above, the findings from the pilot’s assessments demonstrate that
renewable energy solutions constitute a financially attractive and worthwhile investment
for many healthcare organisations, which will enable them to generate a steady income
stream, reduce their carbon footprint, and improve the energy cost resilience of their sites.
 When the time is right for each partner to invest in renewable energy solutions, thanks to
the support and resources provided under this pilot, they will be empowered to make the
necessary purchasing and installation decisions with the necessary confidence, knowledge
and evidence that this pilot has provided them with.
 For this reason, it is expected that the
outcomes of this pilot will encourage
and support healthcare organisations to
make further investments in renewable
energy technology, across the East
Midlands and beyond.
18
Page 44, NEP (2010). “NHS East Midlands Carbon Reduction Project Phase I – Report on Footprinting,
Analysis and Recommendations”. Available at:
www.emphasisnetwork.org.uk/networks/sd/documents/FinalEMCarbonReductionProjectPhaseIreportv23.pdf
19
See NEP (2012). NHS Notts County Desktop Assessment of solar energy installations 6 sites FINAL.

7. USEFUL LINKS AND FURTHER READING
 Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) website on Feed-in-Tariffs (FITs):
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/Renewable_ener/feedin_tariff/f
eedin_tariff.aspx
 Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) (2011). The Inter-departmental Analysts’
Group (IAG) guidance. Valuation of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for appraisal
and evaluation. Toolkit for guidance on valuation of energy use. Available at:
www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/about/ec_social_res/iag_guidance/iag_guidance.aspx
 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and Department for Energy
and Climate Change (DECC) (2011). A brief guide to the carbon valuation methodology for
UK policy appraisal. Available at:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/publications/basket.aspx?filetype=4&filepath=11%2fcutting-
emissions%2fcarbon-valuation%2f3136-guide-carbon-valuation-
methodology.pdf&minwidth=true#basket
 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2009). Guidance on how to
measure and report your greenhouse gas emissions. Available at:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13309-ghg-guidance-0909011.pdf
 Department of Health (DH (2009). Environment and Sustainability. Health Technical
Memorandum 07-07: Sustainable health and social care buildings. Planning, design,
construction and refurbishment. Available at:
www.communityhealthpartnerships.co.uk/?ob=3&id=723
 Eyre, N. et al (1999). Global Warming Damages. Final Report of the Extreme Global
Warming Sub Task (Sep 98), DGX11, European Commission, Brussels. Cited in Clarkson, R.
and Deyes, K. (2002). Estimating the Social Cost of Carbon Emissions, Government Economic
Service Working Paper 140. Environment Projection Economics Division, DEFRA. Available at:
www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/scc.pdf
 NHS Midlands and East Sustainability Portal, including details of the EM NHS Sustainable
Development Network and the EM NHS Carbon Reduction Project:
http://www.eastmidlands.nhs.uk/partners/sustainability/
 NHS Sustainable Development Unit (SDU) (2009). Saving Carbon, Improving Health: An NHS
Carbon Reduction Strategy for England. Updated in 2010. Available at:
www.sdu.nhs.uk/publications-resources/3/NHS-Carbon-Reduction-Strategy/
 NHS SDU (2012). ‘Sustainability in the NHS: Health Check 2012’. Available at:
www.sdu.nhs.uk/documents/publications/Health_Check_Carbon_Footprint_2012.pdf
 Nottingham Energy Partnership (NEP) (2011). Technical Guidance document: Community
renewable energy projects. Available at:
www.nottenergy.com/images/uploads/pdfs/Suggested_Guidelines_for_a_Renewable_Energy_p
roject.pdf
 NEP, 2010. NHS East Midlands Carbon Reduction Project Phase I – Report on Footprinting,
Analysis and Recommendations. Available at:

www.emphasisnetwork.org.uk/networks/sd/documents/FinalEMCarbonReductionProjectPh
aseIreportv23.pdf
 Office for Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) (2009). Project Discovery – Energy Market
Scenarios. Consultation paper No 122/09. Available at:
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Markets/WhlMkts/Discovery/Documents1/Discovery_Scenarios_
ConDoc_FINAL.pdf

APPENDICES
Appendix 1: NEP (2011). Phase II ‘Energy in NHS Estates’ pilot – Project Overview.
Appendix 2: NEP (2011). Phase II ‘Energy in NHS Estates’ pilot – REA Baseline data sheet.
Appendix 3: NEP (2012). Workflow of all stages involved in commissioning solar PV systems.
Appendix 4: NEP (2012). Checklist of generic documentation required to prepare a full FITs
application.
Appendix 5: NEP (2011). Explanatory poster for solar PV generation displays.

Appendix 1: NEP (2011). Phase II ‘Energy in NHS Estates’ pilot – Project Overview. (2 pages).

(Appendix 1, continued).

Appendix 2: NEP (2011). Phase II ‘Energy in NHS Estates’ pilot – REA Baseline data sheet. (2
pages).

Appendix 3: NEP (2012). Workflow of all stages involved in commissioning solar PV
systems (2 pages).
Phase I: Feasibility & potential generation assessment, financial analysis and site selection.

Phase II: Planning, tendering, procurement, installation and handover.
*It is worth noting that not all solar PV system installations require full planning permission, as some installations may qualify as permitted development.
** FITs income resulting from on-site renewable energy generation is administered by licensed electricity suppliers called ‘FIT Licensees’, and not directly by the
Government. It is worth noting that administering FITs income is a completely separate service to electricity supply, and as such, needs to be set up as an
independent agreement with a FIT Licensee. Generator sites are not bound to use their current electricity supplier for this; as a separate service to supply, sites
are free to register for FITs income with whichever FIT Licensee they wish. It is important to note that regardless of which FIT Licensee is chosen, the generator
site will be signing into a 25-year contract for FITs income provision. See: http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/fits/Pages/fits.aspx

Appendix 4: NEP (2012). Checklist of generic documentation required to prepare a full FITs application.
ITEM DESCRIPTION SUPPORTING NOTES
 Generation
meter reading
If the FIT application is submitted immediately after a new system is commissioned i.e. within
the same day as the installer signing off the system, then generation meter reading on
commissioning date could be used, which can be found on the MCS certificate. All other FIT
applications i.e. those submitted some time after the system was commissioned and installed
will require a recent meter reading to be taken from the generator system’s generation meter
and submitted to the Licensee with the FIT application form.
Please note that this reading must be an accurate measurement of
generation at the time of application, so it is recommended that the
reading is taken on the same day as the FIT application form is
submitted. If the information provided is incorrect, Ofgem may view
this action as fraudulent, delaying the processing of signing up with a
Licensee and potentially affecting FIT payments.
 MCS certificate A Micro-generation Certification Scheme (MCS) installation certificate must be generated and
registered on the national MCS database by the accredited installer, who must also provide a
copy to the client upon completion and final payment for the installation works. Only
installations with a valid MCS certificate will be eligible to claim FITs income. MCS certificates
are usually 1 page long, on a light blue background, and feature the MCS logo at the top. They
include the following key data, which will usually be required in the FIT application form:
 Installer details – Company name, company number, installer name.
 Product details – Product name, manufacturer, number, estimated annual generation
(kWh) and declared net capacity (kW).
 Installation address details – Site full address, supply MPAN, installation type,
commissioning date.
 Generation meter details – Meter serial number and initial meter reading.
If your installer has not provided you with an MCS certificate for any
reason (e.g. they are no longer trading), you should be able to
acquire a copy of the current MCS certificate for your generator by
contacting MCS directly, as they should be able to provide you with a
copy downloaded from the national MCS database for free.
Furthermore, MCS can help make any amendments to your current
certificate if this is not accurate or requires changes.
The Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS)
Address: Gemserv Limited 10 Fenchurch Street, London, EC3M 3BE
Tel: +44 (0)20 7090 1041
Email: mcshelpdesk@gemserv.com
Web: www.gemserv.com / www.microgenerationcertification.org
 Proof of
ownership
The proof of ownership for eligible generators usually consists on an invoice or receipt with
the balance of works paid in full, written in the installers’ letter-headed paper, clearly stating
the generator site’s name, full address, and the organisation it belongs to.
It is worth noting that the balance must have been paid in full, in
order to qualify as full proof of ownership i.e. a solar PV system, as
an asset, only then becomes officially transferred from the installer
to the organisation that purchased / commissioned it.
 Electricity
supply details
If the FIT Licensee is different to the generator’s electricity supplier, a copy of a recent
electricity bill for the site is usually required to be submitted with the FITs application as proof
of identification. If they are the same company, just the following 2x pieces of information,
found on the electricity bill, are usually required by the application form:
 Customer Account Number (sometimes referred to as ‘Supply Account Number’).
 Meter Point Administration Number (MPAN) – Usually featured as boxed numbers
beginning with ‘S’ (for supply), on the top right or bottom left of bill. See an example 
 Payment
details
Confirmation of whom the FIT income payments are to be made to should be provided in the
FIT application form, together with the preferred method of payment. Payment is usually
made as either as a) a quarterly cheque from the FITs licensee to the applicant, posted to the
contact details provided by the person who completed the FITs application form in the first
place, or b) a quarterly payment directly into a nominated bank account.
Probably an item worth clarifying early on with Finance Team. Also
an important consideration in terms of sites where ownership may
be soon transferred i.e. the payments will automatically be made to
the original applicant unless alternative arrangements or changes
are agreed with the FIT Licensee thereafter.
Please note that all FIT Licensees are required by Ofgem to take generators (i.e. FITs applicants) through the registration process. Hence, any specific queries on filling in a specific FIT
application form and/or completing a registration for FITs income would be best directed to the FIT Licensee directly.
For a list of FIT Licensee contact details, see: http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/SUSTAINABILITY/ENVIRONMENT/FITS/RFITLS/Pages/rfitls.aspx

32
Appendix 5: NEP (2011). Explanatory poster for solar PV generation displays.

33
ANNEXES
 PVSOL guidance (version 4.0. 23/02/12) on UK Feed in Tariff Economics for both
metered electricity and 50% deeming. For PVSOL Pro 4.5 and PVSol Expert 5.0.
 15x Renewable Energy Opportunities Desktop Assessment Reports.
 3x Energy Audit Reports.
Please note that all of the above are available as separate documents.

NEP_2012_EM_NHS_CRP_Phase_II_1a_REA_pilot_report170412

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to NEP_2012_EM_NHS_CRP_Phase_II_1a_REA_pilot_report170412

Similar to NEP_2012_EM_NHS_CRP_Phase_II_1a_REA_pilot_report170412 (20)

NEP_2012_EM_NHS_CRP_Phase_II_1a_REA_pilot_report170412