Mr. John Melvin:

I thank the Senator for the way he phrased the question. I want to be clear that the security of supply concerns we have predate the Russian invasion of Ukraine and they are not unique. Other entities and countries across Europe see security of supply concerns for entirely different reasons.

France has security of supply concerns with regard to nuclear. Norway has security of supply concerns this year with regard to low water levels for hydro. Finland and Sweden have security of supply concerns linked to nuclear. None of that is to say that the capacity remuneration mechanism, CRM, that we designed was perfectly put in place, perfectly designed or perfectly operated. The point of the EY report was to examine the design and operation of the CRM to see how it might be made better. Clearly that report is in the public domain.

The single electricity market, SEM, committee has a call for evidence whereby we are calling on industry and any participants that wish to respond to respond. It is a comprehensive and thorough external examination of the CRM. I think it is unflinching in its recommendations and in its examination. As the Senator said, no one has hindsight in advance. I think it is a thorough, impartial and unflinching examination.

As for the many complex issues we need to deal with, the last time we were here, the Senator asked about planning permissions as a requirement to enter the capacity auctions. There is a balance to be struck in all these decisions. For example, if there are too many barriers to get into the auctions, people will say there is a barrier to entry and we are keeping out, for example, new entrants. Other people may then say there are not enough pre-qualification requirements. Either way, there is no definite right or wrong answer in advance and balances must be struck.

In any complex mechanism like this capacity remuneration mechanism, people will have different opinions, with some suggesting X and others suggesting Y. It is the job of the regulators, both North and South, in this case the single electricity market committee, to seek to strike those balances. Some of those balances work well and some, with hindsight, could have been done differently. The point of this review is to take stock of where we are now. It is a very thorough review and we welcome anyone's comments on it. If I say any more, I will be repeating myself.