Energy news in general

Doc_N

mmmmikey said:

Doc_N said:

mmmmikey said:

VoucherMan said:

HillStreetBlues said:

So those in Mid to South Wales will be subsidising those in London based on GB6  Who on earth cane up with those zones?

Some overpriced consultant I'd guess. Floating around for a while now, but not the first attempt. I wonder who objected to an earlier revision.

Hi, there seems to be some confusion around these zones. The zones aren't something that someone has decided on as such - they're essentially just what we've already got shown on a map.

The zones are National Grid zones. Everywhere within a particular zone has good grid connectivity to everywhere else in the zone. One of the main reasons that South Wales is in the same zone as London is that there used to be nuclear power stations on the Severn estuary with cables going into both South Wales and London. Because of this the routing of the pylons etc. is such that as things stand today it's easier to get energy between South Wales and London than it is to get it between South Wales and North Wales. That's where the cables are.

The zones only make sense if you look at where power was generated a few decades ago, and that's why investment in the grid is so desperately needed and in various stages of planning. Almost nobody disagrees with the fact that the zones are bonkers in relation to today's requirements and practically everyone agrees that new connections are needed.

Because the zones are bonkers and because of the way prices are set, some generators are making large profits and customers are paying over the odds. Zonal pricing will change that rule and save customers money whilst the new pylons etc. are built, which realistically is a 10 year project.

The difficulty is that not everyone will save the same amount creating an inequality, or post code lottery if you want to call it that. We are currently in the silly situation that although it's fair in the sense there are no zones, we're achieving that fairness by bumping up prices so that everyone pays the same as the most expensive zone. Good news if you're a supplier of course, which is why some of them are making such a fuss about it.

Hope this makes sense?

Indeed. And zonal pricing for a nationally necessary utility makes as much sense as the differential charging system that existed before the introduction of the universal penny post. Or Tesco charging more for Scotch sold in Cornwall because it has further to travel.

So is your view that in order to make things fair we should all pay the most expensive price that anyone is paying? And that in order to achieve that we should bump up the profits of energy generators? 

That is what we are doing today.

My concern, as a pragmatic money saver, is that we risk spending so much time debating who should save that nobody saves. To my way of thinking that would be a crying shame. If Scottish customers can save themselves a few quid whilst the grid is being upgraded I think that's great whether or not I save anything myself.

But each to their own.....

Of course not. It simply requires efficient regulation and an averaging formula. Neither beyond the wit of man, or woman!

MattMattMattUK

Doc_N said:

mmmmikey said:

VoucherMan said:

HillStreetBlues said:

So those in Mid to South Wales will be subsidising those in London based on GB6  Who on earth cane up with those zones?

Some overpriced consultant I'd guess. Floating around for a while now, but not the first attempt. I wonder who objected to an earlier revision.

Hi, there seems to be some confusion around these zones. The zones aren't something that someone has decided on as such - they're essentially just what we've already got shown on a map.

The zones are National Grid zones. Everywhere within a particular zone has good grid connectivity to everywhere else in the zone. One of the main reasons that South Wales is in the same zone as London is that there used to be nuclear power stations on the Severn estuary with cables going into both South Wales and London. Because of this the routing of the pylons etc. is such that as things stand today it's easier to get energy between South Wales and London than it is to get it between South Wales and North Wales. That's where the cables are.

The zones only make sense if you look at where power was generated a few decades ago, and that's why investment in the grid is so desperately needed and in various stages of planning. Almost nobody disagrees with the fact that the zones are bonkers in relation to today's requirements and practically everyone agrees that new connections are needed.

Because the zones are bonkers and because of the way prices are set, some generators are making large profits and customers are paying over the odds. Zonal pricing will change that rule and save customers money whilst the new pylons etc. are built, which realistically is a 10 year project.

The difficulty is that not everyone will save the same amount creating an inequality, or post code lottery if you want to call it that. We are currently in the silly situation that although it's fair in the sense there are no zones, we're achieving that fairness by bumping up prices so that everyone pays the same as the most expensive zone. Good news if you're a supplier of course, which is why some of them are making such a fuss about it.

Hope this makes sense?

Indeed. And zonal pricing for a nationally necessary utility makes as much sense as the differential charging system that existed before the introduction of the universal penny post. Or Tesco charging more for Scotch sold in Cornwall because it has further to travel.

Tesco (and other supermarkets) do charge different prices for the same grocery products in different parts of the country, on both a regional and local level. Food is generally more expensive in London, the South East, South West and East of England, but it will be more expensive in Chiswick than Clapham, more expensive in Wilmslow than Salford, more expensive in Edinburgh than Glasgow etc. 

The reason that stamps were fixed rate was because the differential pricing model was too complicated, confusing and discouraged use of a system the government was keen to grow. The if there were different regional pricing for energy that would be very easy to operate with modern electronic billing systems, it would not be confusing and it would boost the government's aims, whilst also lowering energy costs for the vast majority of households. 

MattMattMattUK

Doc_N said:

mmmmikey said:

Doc_N said:

mmmmikey said:

VoucherMan said:

HillStreetBlues said:

So those in Mid to South Wales will be subsidising those in London based on GB6  Who on earth cane up with those zones?

Some overpriced consultant I'd guess. Floating around for a while now, but not the first attempt. I wonder who objected to an earlier revision.

Hi, there seems to be some confusion around these zones. The zones aren't something that someone has decided on as such - they're essentially just what we've already got shown on a map.

The zones are National Grid zones. Everywhere within a particular zone has good grid connectivity to everywhere else in the zone. One of the main reasons that South Wales is in the same zone as London is that there used to be nuclear power stations on the Severn estuary with cables going into both South Wales and London. Because of this the routing of the pylons etc. is such that as things stand today it's easier to get energy between South Wales and London than it is to get it between South Wales and North Wales. That's where the cables are.

The zones only make sense if you look at where power was generated a few decades ago, and that's why investment in the grid is so desperately needed and in various stages of planning. Almost nobody disagrees with the fact that the zones are bonkers in relation to today's requirements and practically everyone agrees that new connections are needed.

Because the zones are bonkers and because of the way prices are set, some generators are making large profits and customers are paying over the odds. Zonal pricing will change that rule and save customers money whilst the new pylons etc. are built, which realistically is a 10 year project.

The difficulty is that not everyone will save the same amount creating an inequality, or post code lottery if you want to call it that. We are currently in the silly situation that although it's fair in the sense there are no zones, we're achieving that fairness by bumping up prices so that everyone pays the same as the most expensive zone. Good news if you're a supplier of course, which is why some of them are making such a fuss about it.

Hope this makes sense?

Indeed. And zonal pricing for a nationally necessary utility makes as much sense as the differential charging system that existed before the introduction of the universal penny post. Or Tesco charging more for Scotch sold in Cornwall because it has further to travel.

So is your view that in order to make things fair we should all pay the most expensive price that anyone is paying? And that in order to achieve that we should bump up the profits of energy generators? 

That is what we are doing today.

My concern, as a pragmatic money saver, is that we risk spending so much time debating who should save that nobody saves. To my way of thinking that would be a crying shame. If Scottish customers can save themselves a few quid whilst the grid is being upgraded I think that's great whether or not I save anything myself.

But each to their own.....

Of course not. It simply requires efficient regulation and an averaging formula. Neither beyond the wit of man, or woman!

None of that would encourage energy generation capacity to be installed closer to where it is needed, or for energy usage to move closer to where it is generated, it would not help alleviate transmission losses. 

mmmmikey

Doc_N said:

mmmmikey said:

Doc_N said:

mmmmikey said:

VoucherMan said:

HillStreetBlues said:

So those in Mid to South Wales will be subsidising those in London based on GB6  Who on earth cane up with those zones?

Some overpriced consultant I'd guess. Floating around for a while now, but not the first attempt. I wonder who objected to an earlier revision.

Hi, there seems to be some confusion around these zones. The zones aren't something that someone has decided on as such - they're essentially just what we've already got shown on a map.

The zones are National Grid zones. Everywhere within a particular zone has good grid connectivity to everywhere else in the zone. One of the main reasons that South Wales is in the same zone as London is that there used to be nuclear power stations on the Severn estuary with cables going into both South Wales and London. Because of this the routing of the pylons etc. is such that as things stand today it's easier to get energy between South Wales and London than it is to get it between South Wales and North Wales. That's where the cables are.

The zones only make sense if you look at where power was generated a few decades ago, and that's why investment in the grid is so desperately needed and in various stages of planning. Almost nobody disagrees with the fact that the zones are bonkers in relation to today's requirements and practically everyone agrees that new connections are needed.

Because the zones are bonkers and because of the way prices are set, some generators are making large profits and customers are paying over the odds. Zonal pricing will change that rule and save customers money whilst the new pylons etc. are built, which realistically is a 10 year project.

The difficulty is that not everyone will save the same amount creating an inequality, or post code lottery if you want to call it that. We are currently in the silly situation that although it's fair in the sense there are no zones, we're achieving that fairness by bumping up prices so that everyone pays the same as the most expensive zone. Good news if you're a supplier of course, which is why some of them are making such a fuss about it.

Hope this makes sense?

Indeed. And zonal pricing for a nationally necessary utility makes as much sense as the differential charging system that existed before the introduction of the universal penny post. Or Tesco charging more for Scotch sold in Cornwall because it has further to travel.

So is your view that in order to make things fair we should all pay the most expensive price that anyone is paying? And that in order to achieve that we should bump up the profits of energy generators? 

That is what we are doing today.

My concern, as a pragmatic money saver, is that we risk spending so much time debating who should save that nobody saves. To my way of thinking that would be a crying shame. If Scottish customers can save themselves a few quid whilst the grid is being upgraded I think that's great whether or not I save anything myself.

But each to their own.....

Of course not. It simply requires efficient regulation and an averaging formula. Neither beyond the wit of man, or woman!

Agreed

I would see that as a logical next step. One way or the other, IMHO, the sooner we get on with zonal pricing the better as at least that way some folk can be saving whilst we have the inevitable bun fight about how such an averaging formula work and to what extent that should encompass existing regional pricing differences. Given that standing charges come into that discussion and all the emotions that stirs up, I'm strongly in favour of separating the two changes so we don't end up spending so much time arguing we do nothing.

Edit: for clarification zonal pricing changes the price that energy suppliers pay on a region by region basis. There's no reason I can see that, subsequent to that, Ofgem couldn't add an extra layer of regulation to even out regional differences. Whether that is a good thing or not is a matter for another debate but my view it is a different debate. Some would argue they should already be doing that, others would shrug their shoulders and ask why whilst many will say it's a good thing if they benefit but a bad thing if not....

mmmmikey

MattMattMattUK said:

Doc_N said:

mmmmikey said:

Doc_N said:

mmmmikey said:

VoucherMan said:

HillStreetBlues said:

So those in Mid to South Wales will be subsidising those in London based on GB6  Who on earth cane up with those zones?

Some overpriced consultant I'd guess. Floating around for a while now, but not the first attempt. I wonder who objected to an earlier revision.

Hi, there seems to be some confusion around these zones. The zones aren't something that someone has decided on as such - they're essentially just what we've already got shown on a map.

The zones are National Grid zones. Everywhere within a particular zone has good grid connectivity to everywhere else in the zone. One of the main reasons that South Wales is in the same zone as London is that there used to be nuclear power stations on the Severn estuary with cables going into both South Wales and London. Because of this the routing of the pylons etc. is such that as things stand today it's easier to get energy between South Wales and London than it is to get it between South Wales and North Wales. That's where the cables are.

The zones only make sense if you look at where power was generated a few decades ago, and that's why investment in the grid is so desperately needed and in various stages of planning. Almost nobody disagrees with the fact that the zones are bonkers in relation to today's requirements and practically everyone agrees that new connections are needed.

Because the zones are bonkers and because of the way prices are set, some generators are making large profits and customers are paying over the odds. Zonal pricing will change that rule and save customers money whilst the new pylons etc. are built, which realistically is a 10 year project.

The difficulty is that not everyone will save the same amount creating an inequality, or post code lottery if you want to call it that. We are currently in the silly situation that although it's fair in the sense there are no zones, we're achieving that fairness by bumping up prices so that everyone pays the same as the most expensive zone. Good news if you're a supplier of course, which is why some of them are making such a fuss about it.

Hope this makes sense?

Indeed. And zonal pricing for a nationally necessary utility makes as much sense as the differential charging system that existed before the introduction of the universal penny post. Or Tesco charging more for Scotch sold in Cornwall because it has further to travel.

So is your view that in order to make things fair we should all pay the most expensive price that anyone is paying? And that in order to achieve that we should bump up the profits of energy generators? 

That is what we are doing today.

My concern, as a pragmatic money saver, is that we risk spending so much time debating who should save that nobody saves. To my way of thinking that would be a crying shame. If Scottish customers can save themselves a few quid whilst the grid is being upgraded I think that's great whether or not I save anything myself.

But each to their own.....

Of course not. It simply requires efficient regulation and an averaging formula. Neither beyond the wit of man, or woman!

None of that would encourage energy generation capacity to be installed closer to where it is needed, or for energy usage to move closer to where it is generated, it would not help alleviate transmission losses. 

......but could you do both? I can't see why not. Move to zonal pricing and then consider the issue of regional price regulation as a separate issue?

MattMattMattUK

mmmmikey said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Doc_N said:

mmmmikey said:

Doc_N said:

mmmmikey said:

VoucherMan said:

HillStreetBlues said:

So those in Mid to South Wales will be subsidising those in London based on GB6  Who on earth cane up with those zones?

Some overpriced consultant I'd guess. Floating around for a while now, but not the first attempt. I wonder who objected to an earlier revision.

Hi, there seems to be some confusion around these zones. The zones aren't something that someone has decided on as such - they're essentially just what we've already got shown on a map.

The zones are National Grid zones. Everywhere within a particular zone has good grid connectivity to everywhere else in the zone. One of the main reasons that South Wales is in the same zone as London is that there used to be nuclear power stations on the Severn estuary with cables going into both South Wales and London. Because of this the routing of the pylons etc. is such that as things stand today it's easier to get energy between South Wales and London than it is to get it between South Wales and North Wales. That's where the cables are.

The zones only make sense if you look at where power was generated a few decades ago, and that's why investment in the grid is so desperately needed and in various stages of planning. Almost nobody disagrees with the fact that the zones are bonkers in relation to today's requirements and practically everyone agrees that new connections are needed.

Because the zones are bonkers and because of the way prices are set, some generators are making large profits and customers are paying over the odds. Zonal pricing will change that rule and save customers money whilst the new pylons etc. are built, which realistically is a 10 year project.

The difficulty is that not everyone will save the same amount creating an inequality, or post code lottery if you want to call it that. We are currently in the silly situation that although it's fair in the sense there are no zones, we're achieving that fairness by bumping up prices so that everyone pays the same as the most expensive zone. Good news if you're a supplier of course, which is why some of them are making such a fuss about it.

Hope this makes sense?

Indeed. And zonal pricing for a nationally necessary utility makes as much sense as the differential charging system that existed before the introduction of the universal penny post. Or Tesco charging more for Scotch sold in Cornwall because it has further to travel.

So is your view that in order to make things fair we should all pay the most expensive price that anyone is paying? And that in order to achieve that we should bump up the profits of energy generators? 

That is what we are doing today.

My concern, as a pragmatic money saver, is that we risk spending so much time debating who should save that nobody saves. To my way of thinking that would be a crying shame. If Scottish customers can save themselves a few quid whilst the grid is being upgraded I think that's great whether or not I save anything myself.

But each to their own.....

Of course not. It simply requires efficient regulation and an averaging formula. Neither beyond the wit of man, or woman!

None of that would encourage energy generation capacity to be installed closer to where it is needed, or for energy usage to move closer to where it is generated, it would not help alleviate transmission losses. 

......but could you do both? I can't see why not. Move to zonal pricing and then consider the issue of regional price regulation as a separate issue?

I do not have an issue with, at least in principal. As long as it was done on a rational basis, a proper methodology based on grid topography and costs rather than an emotive or political basis then that would be totally fine. 

masonic

We already have separation between consumer energy contracts and energy suppliers buying the energy to fulfil them. We already have different consumer energy prices (and standing charges) in different regions. We already have schemes where selected consumers can take part in schemes for discounted or free energy. It seems to me all the downstream economic pieces are in place and it is a matter of adjusting the wholesale market. There seems to be a lot of flexibility in what could be done downstream of that.

Sea_Shell

MattMattMattUK said:

Doc_N said:

mmmmikey said:

VoucherMan said:

HillStreetBlues said:

So those in Mid to South Wales will be subsidising those in London based on GB6  Who on earth cane up with those zones?

Some overpriced consultant I'd guess. Floating around for a while now, but not the first attempt. I wonder who objected to an earlier revision.

Hi, there seems to be some confusion around these zones. The zones aren't something that someone has decided on as such - they're essentially just what we've already got shown on a map.

The zones are National Grid zones. Everywhere within a particular zone has good grid connectivity to everywhere else in the zone. One of the main reasons that South Wales is in the same zone as London is that there used to be nuclear power stations on the Severn estuary with cables going into both South Wales and London. Because of this the routing of the pylons etc. is such that as things stand today it's easier to get energy between South Wales and London than it is to get it between South Wales and North Wales. That's where the cables are.

The zones only make sense if you look at where power was generated a few decades ago, and that's why investment in the grid is so desperately needed and in various stages of planning. Almost nobody disagrees with the fact that the zones are bonkers in relation to today's requirements and practically everyone agrees that new connections are needed.

Because the zones are bonkers and because of the way prices are set, some generators are making large profits and customers are paying over the odds. Zonal pricing will change that rule and save customers money whilst the new pylons etc. are built, which realistically is a 10 year project.

The difficulty is that not everyone will save the same amount creating an inequality, or post code lottery if you want to call it that. We are currently in the silly situation that although it's fair in the sense there are no zones, we're achieving that fairness by bumping up prices so that everyone pays the same as the most expensive zone. Good news if you're a supplier of course, which is why some of them are making such a fuss about it.

Hope this makes sense?

Indeed. And zonal pricing for a nationally necessary utility makes as much sense as the differential charging system that existed before the introduction of the universal penny post. Or Tesco charging more for Scotch sold in Cornwall because it has further to travel.

Tesco (and other supermarkets) do charge different prices for the same grocery products in different parts of the country, on both a regional and local level. Food is generally more expensive in London, the South East, South West and East of England, but it will be more expensive in Chiswick than Clapham, more expensive in Wilmslow than Salford, more expensive in Edinburgh than Glasgow etc. 

The reason that stamps were fixed rate was because the differential pricing model was too complicated, confusing and discouraged use of a system the government was keen to grow. The if there were different regional pricing for energy that would be very easy to operate with modern electronic billing systems, it would not be confusing and it would boost the government's aims, whilst also lowering energy costs for the vast majority of households. 

I'll believe that when I see it.

In 10, 15, 20 years time, will our bills be higher or lower than they are now, relative to inflation.

mmmmikey

Sea_Shell said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Doc_N said:

mmmmikey said:

VoucherMan said:

HillStreetBlues said:

So those in Mid to South Wales will be subsidising those in London based on GB6  Who on earth cane up with those zones?

Some overpriced consultant I'd guess. Floating around for a while now, but not the first attempt. I wonder who objected to an earlier revision.

Hi, there seems to be some confusion around these zones. The zones aren't something that someone has decided on as such - they're essentially just what we've already got shown on a map.

The zones are National Grid zones. Everywhere within a particular zone has good grid connectivity to everywhere else in the zone. One of the main reasons that South Wales is in the same zone as London is that there used to be nuclear power stations on the Severn estuary with cables going into both South Wales and London. Because of this the routing of the pylons etc. is such that as things stand today it's easier to get energy between South Wales and London than it is to get it between South Wales and North Wales. That's where the cables are.

The zones only make sense if you look at where power was generated a few decades ago, and that's why investment in the grid is so desperately needed and in various stages of planning. Almost nobody disagrees with the fact that the zones are bonkers in relation to today's requirements and practically everyone agrees that new connections are needed.

Because the zones are bonkers and because of the way prices are set, some generators are making large profits and customers are paying over the odds. Zonal pricing will change that rule and save customers money whilst the new pylons etc. are built, which realistically is a 10 year project.

The difficulty is that not everyone will save the same amount creating an inequality, or post code lottery if you want to call it that. We are currently in the silly situation that although it's fair in the sense there are no zones, we're achieving that fairness by bumping up prices so that everyone pays the same as the most expensive zone. Good news if you're a supplier of course, which is why some of them are making such a fuss about it.

Hope this makes sense?

Indeed. And zonal pricing for a nationally necessary utility makes as much sense as the differential charging system that existed before the introduction of the universal penny post. Or Tesco charging more for Scotch sold in Cornwall because it has further to travel.

Tesco (and other supermarkets) do charge different prices for the same grocery products in different parts of the country, on both a regional and local level. Food is generally more expensive in London, the South East, South West and East of England, but it will be more expensive in Chiswick than Clapham, more expensive in Wilmslow than Salford, more expensive in Edinburgh than Glasgow etc. 

The reason that stamps were fixed rate was because the differential pricing model was too complicated, confusing and discouraged use of a system the government was keen to grow. The if there were different regional pricing for energy that would be very easy to operate with modern electronic billing systems, it would not be confusing and it would boost the government's aims, whilst also lowering energy costs for the vast majority of households. 

I'll believe that when I see it.

In 10, 15, 20 years time, will our bills be higher or lower than they are now, relative to inflation.

The simple but flippant answer to your question is yes, unless they're about the same

I think the key point is that they will be lower with zonal pricing than they would have been without it. Coming back to my more flippant answer the challenge as always will be that the actual effect will be masked by many things that are difficult to separate out.

masonic

Sea_Shell said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Doc_N said:

mmmmikey said:

VoucherMan said:

HillStreetBlues said:

So those in Mid to South Wales will be subsidising those in London based on GB6  Who on earth cane up with those zones?

Some overpriced consultant I'd guess. Floating around for a while now, but not the first attempt. I wonder who objected to an earlier revision.

Hi, there seems to be some confusion around these zones. The zones aren't something that someone has decided on as such - they're essentially just what we've already got shown on a map.

The zones are National Grid zones. Everywhere within a particular zone has good grid connectivity to everywhere else in the zone. One of the main reasons that South Wales is in the same zone as London is that there used to be nuclear power stations on the Severn estuary with cables going into both South Wales and London. Because of this the routing of the pylons etc. is such that as things stand today it's easier to get energy between South Wales and London than it is to get it between South Wales and North Wales. That's where the cables are.

The zones only make sense if you look at where power was generated a few decades ago, and that's why investment in the grid is so desperately needed and in various stages of planning. Almost nobody disagrees with the fact that the zones are bonkers in relation to today's requirements and practically everyone agrees that new connections are needed.

Because the zones are bonkers and because of the way prices are set, some generators are making large profits and customers are paying over the odds. Zonal pricing will change that rule and save customers money whilst the new pylons etc. are built, which realistically is a 10 year project.

The difficulty is that not everyone will save the same amount creating an inequality, or post code lottery if you want to call it that. We are currently in the silly situation that although it's fair in the sense there are no zones, we're achieving that fairness by bumping up prices so that everyone pays the same as the most expensive zone. Good news if you're a supplier of course, which is why some of them are making such a fuss about it.

Hope this makes sense?

Indeed. And zonal pricing for a nationally necessary utility makes as much sense as the differential charging system that existed before the introduction of the universal penny post. Or Tesco charging more for Scotch sold in Cornwall because it has further to travel.

Tesco (and other supermarkets) do charge different prices for the same grocery products in different parts of the country, on both a regional and local level. Food is generally more expensive in London, the South East, South West and East of England, but it will be more expensive in Chiswick than Clapham, more expensive in Wilmslow than Salford, more expensive in Edinburgh than Glasgow etc. 

The reason that stamps were fixed rate was because the differential pricing model was too complicated, confusing and discouraged use of a system the government was keen to grow. The if there were different regional pricing for energy that would be very easy to operate with modern electronic billing systems, it would not be confusing and it would boost the government's aims, whilst also lowering energy costs for the vast majority of households. 

I'll believe that when I see it.
In 10, 15, 20 years time, will our bills be higher or lower than they are now, relative to inflation.

If you pose the question in that way, what you are really asking is whether other goods and services will rise in price to a greater extent than electricity costs? Forecasting that is nigh impossible, especially with the precarious position we find global trade and international relations. The trouble is we've seen rampant inflation in many of the items making up the basket of goods and services used to generate the current inflation figure. So how close are we now to a level playing field in terms of valuation of these various goods and services? In terms of yearly aggregate spot price, the peak was in 2022 at £204/MWh, whereas so far in 2025 the average has been just under £100/MWh. What else in the basket is influenced by wholesale prices that quadrupled between 2020-2022, or halved between 2022-2023?

It would be a success if we avoided reaching that previous peak in real terms the next time our energy security is challenged.