John Haw, Chair of the Energy Consultants Association
For schools, NHS trusts and local councils, energy sits among the largest controllable costs in any budget. Yet procurement decisions that could run to millions of pounds over a contract term are often delegated to whichever route feels safest. That route, almost without exception, is the Crown Commercial Service (CCS).
That instinct is understandable. CCS is government-backed, politically easy to justify and familiar to procurement teams. But familiarity is not the same as value, and a convergence of regulatory change and market volatility means public sector energy managers have good reason to question whether the default is serving them.
The broker relationship most buyers don’t scrutinise
Most public sector organisations don’t buy energy directly. They appoint an energy broker or third-party intermediary (TPI), to navigate the market, manage contracts and, in theory, secure the best available terms on their behalf. That broker relationship sits at the heart of every energy procurement decision, which makes the choice of broker as consequential as the choice of framework.
Until recently, that market has been almost entirely unregulated. In October 2025, following evidence of widespread hidden commissions, mis-selling and poor complaint handling, the government confirmed it would give Ofgem statutory powers to regulate energy brokers for the first time.
Regulation is coming, but it isn’t here yet. In a market that has operated without formal oversight for years, public sector energy managers appointing a broker today must question who they appoint, and what standards the broker holds themselves to.
Why CCS may not be the right answer
Against that backdrop, defaulting to CCS compounds the problem rather than solving it. CCS is a compliant framework but the structure of CCS’s energy agreements limits the latter significantly.
CCS aggregates public sector buyers into fixed procurement rounds, purchasing energy for April and October delivery dates. The logic is collective buying power and risk management. The practical effect is that contract decisions are driven by a calendar rather than market conditions. In an energy market shaped by sustained geopolitical volatility, the ability to move when conditions are right, rather than when a procurement schedule dictates, is one of the most material levers a public sector energy manager has.
There are service limitations too. A framework designed for central government procurement is not well-suited to managing a complex, dispersed estate — the kind of multi-site, multi-meter portfolio that a large NHS trust or local authority typically operates. Meter consolidation, bill validation, carbon reporting and VAT reconciliation sit outside what a centralised framework typically delivers.
A more flexible, compliant alternative
The Procurement Act 2023, which came into force in February 2025, created a more flexible vehicle: the dynamic market. Like CCS, a properly constituted dynamic market gives public sector buyers access to pre-approved, compliant suppliers and satisfies procurement law. Unlike CCS, it allows buyers to integrate renewable solutions, adapt contract strategy to live market conditions and access a broader range of services, all without the need to re-tender.
Dynamic markets are not yet commonplace in the UK energy space — the infrastructure required to run one properly means only a small number of providers have built them. That scarcity is worth understanding correctly: it reflects the rigour involved, not a limitation of the model itself.
The questions worth asking now
With Ofgem’s regulatory framework for brokers still in development and full enforcement not expected before 2028, public sector energy managers cannot rely on regulation to sort the market for them. The practical answer is to apply scrutiny at the point of appointment.
Before engaging any broker, it is worth asking directly: do you operate within a compliant framework or dynamic market place, and can you demonstrate that? How do you approach contract timing — are you able to act on market conditions, or are you locked to a procurement calendar? What services do you provide beyond contract placement like meter management, bill validation, carbon reporting? And how are you remunerated: will you disclose that in writing, upfront?
Any broker who is a member of the Energy Consultants Association is bound by a mandatory code of conduct that requires transparent commission disclosure as a baseline. In a market still waiting for statutory regulation to arrive, that kind of voluntary commitment to professional standards is a meaningful signal.
The default has been convenient. Whether it has been good value is a different question. Now is the time to find out.
This article appeared in the June 2026 issue of Energy Manager magazine. Subscribe here.
