And almost always they are wrong, wrong, wrong. It is certainly important to have security (and also just plain old reliability) of supply as an unbending goal of energy; but history tells us that almost always, since there is no underlying shortage - far from it - this is best achieved by rigorously ensuring the unfettered operation of the open market (as written about here several times over the years, with specific examples). Of course, 'unfettered' is a relative term in such politically-charged commodities as coal, oil, gas and electricity: but the extent to which the markets can be left to work their usual magic is vastly under-rated by all manner of people who should definitely know better.
Anyhow, having just seen the EC sneekily advance its power-grab, the 'Energy Union' under the false flag of security, we now have Ed Balls planning a mini-version of something similar: an 'energy security board'. In a world of honest policy debate one could look forward to this with a degree of relish (a security board, not a Labour government of course) because it would directly pit the proper concerns of reliable electricity supply against the nonsensical claims of the wind turbine lobby, and the baroque fantasy which is EDF's nuclear offer. Then we could have all sorts of useful analysis on just how much should the nation be willing to pay for self-sufficiency in energy supply. (A lot less than the Hinkley £92.50/MWh indexed-linked, I should say.)
However, we all know how the rhetoric works in practice. Security is important: gas comes from Russia = evil; therefore we need heavily to subsidise . . . . . . . . . [fill in your favourite daft source of electricity here]. It's all so predictable.