Well that's the headline given by the "writer". Suppose it looks better than "Extra fuel burnt to save costs".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7124021.stm
Myself can't see a problem in reducing costs, even if it does means slightly more fuel used.
What does puzzle me though, on the figures quoted, is how you can use an extra 1.6 tonnes of fuel but manage to produce an extra three tonnes of carbon dioxide.
But then it was one of my better subject's at school. That was so long ago, before the days of "Global Warming" and outspoken tree huggers.