Context and Rationale
The impact of the war in Ukraine on wholesale and retail energy prices has revealed energy security vulnerabilities in the UK – at least in terms of the ability to secure energy at a price affordable for consumers and public finances. Energy security is a high-profile priority for the UK Government, but consensus is lacking on how to usefully define and measure energy security. The way in which energy security is measured will also need to change as the UK energy system continues to decarbonise, digitalise and decentralise. With intense interest in energy security, net zero strategy and energy costs, a more evidence-based and transparent approach is needed.
This working paper addresses the question of how the UK’s energy security can be better measured, managed and communicated in a way that is fit for the net zero transition. Drawing on a review of energy security indices and literature, plus a stakeholder workshop, it explores conceptualisations of energy security and existing indicator-based approaches to tracking energy security. It presents a new framework for monitoring UK energy security called the ‘4+4 Framework’.
Key features of the ‘4+4 Framework’
The approach emphasises operationalising energy security through systematic and comprehensive identification of specific indicators, metrics, and data sources to support transparent and data-led monitoring.
The framework consists of eight themes: four commonly used themes (Availability, Accessibility, Affordability, and Acceptability) plus four additional themes: Sustainability, Independence, Governance, and Data & Metrics. The eight themes contain a total of 72 indicators, for which corresponding data sources are systematically identified.
In contrast to indicators being ‘siloed’ within a single dimension, a matrix approach allows indicators to be linked to more than one relevant theme. This acknowledges fuzzy and overlapping boundaries between dimensions/themes and helps to highlight, and therefore manage, the risk of double-counting. It also allows flexibility to add more themes or sub-themes, according to evolving policy goals, public concerns or communication needs.
Poor metrics and data jeopardise energy security – limiting awareness of risks, confidence in risk assessments, and the ability to respond and manage them effectively. Choice of indicators was not constrained by current data availability. Instead, the quality of metrics and data are assessed within the framework.
Using the framework
Guidelines for using the framework suggest two steps:
Step 1 – Assess data and metrics for each indicator and theme using criteria from the Data & Metrics theme (these cover the quality of the metrics and the availability, accessibility and quality of the data). Step 1 may be presented in a Data Dashboard and should inform assessments of energy security risks and activities to improve metrics and data.
Step 2 – Assess energy security risks for each theme using existing indicators and data. Assessments should consider: short and long-term perspectives; potential double-counting; and the quality of data and metrics. Step 2 may be presented in a Risk Dashboard and should support: policymaking and implementation; communicating energy security progress to stakeholders with greater transparency; and activities to improve metrics and data (priority being given to areas where metrics or data are poor and where risk level appears high).
The 4+4 Framework is relatively complex but should better support users to capture risks, avoid double-counting, make decisions that account for trade-offs and synergies, and continue to improve data and governance. Implementation might be enabled through an interactive ICT interface.
The framework remains a work in progress requiring inclusive collaboration among stakeholders and experts to: further review and develop indicators, metrics, data and methods for aggregating assessments.