During this event, Professors Leigh Hancher and Kaisa Huhta, senior legal experts from FSR, will provide an in-depth analysis of recent notable energy-related cases and pending case law at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

The FSR Law Area will present a comprehensive review of the most significant energy cases brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union in recent months. Professors Leigh Hancher (FSR and Universities of Tilburg and Bergen) and Kaisa Huhta (FSR and University of Eastern Finland) will offer an expert analysis of the latest developments in case law. The discussion will also include an overview of key pending cases.

Following the presentation, an interactive Q&A session will allow attendees to engage directly with the experts and deepen their understanding of the topics discussed.

The cases that will be discussed include:

T-485/21 – BNetzA v ACER [T-482/21; T-446/21; T-476/21; T-472/21; T-482/21; T-483/21; T-484/21]

T-526/19 – RENV – Nord Stream 2 v Parliament and Council (appeal: C-118/25 P)

C-205/23 – Engie Romania

C-794/21 P – Germany v Infineon Technologies Dresden and Others [C-790/21 P; C-792/21 P]

C-701/21 P – Mytilinaios v DEI and Commission

C-255/22 P – Orlen v Commission

C-59/23 P – Austria v Commission (Centrale nucléaire Paks II) [Opinion of AG Medina]

C-48/23 – Alajärven Sähkö and Others

The discussion will also cover an overview of the most important pending cases.

Regulating CO2 transportation infrastructure: Exploring European approaches and future policy directions

On 30 January 2025, the European Commission announced the allocation of almost €250 million from its Connecting Europe Facility to support the construction of three projects and fund nine preparatory studies for CCS infrastructures. This financial support follows the Net Zero Industry Act (June 2024), which set a capture capacity target of 50 MtCO₂ per year by 2030. However, in contrast to these developments, NGOs have sent a letter to Commission President Von der Leyen calling for the urgent development of an EU Action Plan for CCS—specifically calling for the regulation of CO₂ transportation infrastructures. In light of this context, the debate will focus on regulating CCS transportation.

Recent European developments demonstrate a growing interest in CCS. In 2024, the Net Zero Industry Act established a storage target of 50 MtCO₂ per year by 2030 and imposed an obligation on oil and gas companies to contribute to this goal. To meet these targets, the EU has expanded several funding mechanisms, including the Connect Europe Facility (CEF) fund, the Innovation Fund, and Horizon Europe. Similarly, the European Commission has published Revised Guidance on the 2009 CCS Directive (2009/31/EC) for CO₂ storage.

However, little attention has been paid to regulating transportation infrastructure. The 2009 CCS Directive briefly addresses CO₂ transportation regulation, and the Revised Guidance offers no further clarification. Interestingly, the 2023 DG Ener report “EU Regulation for the Development of the Market for CO₂ Transport and Storage” explores various regulatory options for CO₂ transportation infrastructure but does not recommend a preferred model. At the national level, significant regulatory disparities exist, with countries such as Norway and the United Kingdom taking major regularory initiatives.

Against this background, Adrien Nicolle from FSR will present insights from his co-authored paper, which introduces an analytic model for CO₂ pipeline transportation. Following his presentation, the debate will offer different visions for regulating transportation infrastructure, drawing on expert opinions from the panel. The session, moderated by Marzia Sesini and Nicolò Rossetto from FSR, will invite audience participation for an engaging and thought-provoking dialogue.

This debate will discuss the findings of the JRC Report on methane emissions coming from the biogas and biomethane supply chains. Starting from the data presented, the panel debate will expand to the wider role that biogas and biomethane will have in the upcoming decade and assess their contribution to reaching the EU decarbonisation targets. 

Read the JRC Report titled “Methane emissions in the biogas and biomethane supply chains in the EU” here.

The scaling up of renewable gases, such as biogas and biomethane, is a critical and effective component of the EU’s long-term decarbonisation strategy. The gradual replacement of fossil-based energy with cleaner energy sources – either to produce renewable electricity or used in the form of ‘clean molecules’ – is at the core of the EU Green Deal, as outlined in the EU System Integration Strategy (2020).

More specifically, the REPowerEU Plan of 18 May 2022 set the target to 35 bcm of biogas/biomethane by 2030, with the double aim of reducing the EU’s dependency on natural gas imports while, at the same time, improving the overall European GHG footprint, by replacing molecules of fossil origin with molecules of biological origin.

According to the European Biogas Association (EBA), in 2023, biomethane production alone reached 4.9 bcm, the highest level ever, with the greatest year-on-year increase concentrated in the EU area (21%). Combined biogas and biomethane production in 2023 amounted to 22 bcm, which represented 7% of the natural gas consumption of the European Union.

On the other hand, the biogas and biomethane supply chains are not zero-GHG emissions supply chains and particular attention has been paid by several observers to the emissions of methane.

The doubling of methane emissions concentration levels in the last 200 years has been blamed on anthropogenic activities, particularly in the fossil fuels, agriculture and waste management sectors. Coal mining and gas generation and transport are among the main causes of this detrimental impact on the atmosphere.

Moreover, about 54% of man-made methane emissions come from the agriculture sector and particularly from enteric fermentation (81%) and manure.

A recently published report from the Joint Research Centre (JRC) carries out a review of all methane emissions from biogas and biomethane production to provide an updated, comprehensive methodology for emissions accounting for biogas and biomethane production, including methane losses.

Draft Programme

Introduction to the Debate and Opening Presentations

14.00 – 14.05    Introduction to the Debate

Ilaria Conti | Florence School of Regulation

14.05 – 14.20    Presentation of the Report

Marco Buffi | Scientific Project Officer, Unit C2, Joint Research Centre

14.20 – 14.30    The regulatory perspective

Benoît Esnault | Vice-chair of the Gas Working Group, CEER

Panel Discussion: Introductory Remarks and Discussion

Moderator: Alberto Pototschnig | Florence School of Regulation

14.30 – 14.50    Introductory remarks from the panellists
Maria Olczak | Research Fellow, Oxford Institute for Energy Studies
Harmen Dekker | CEO, European Biogas Association
James France | Scientific Adviser, IMEO

14.50 – 15.20    Discussion and Q&A from the audience
Panellists

15.20 – 15.30    Concluding remarks
Ilaria Conti | Florence School of Regulation
Alberto Pototschnig | Florence School of Regulation

Join this online debate to examine the evolving role of nuclear energy in the EU, including its potential for achieving decarbonisation goals, the development of Small Modular Reactors, and the European Commission’s shifting stance on nuclear as a key contributor to a sustainable energy future.

Achieving a 90% GHG reduction by 2040 will require the (quasi) complete decarbonisation of the electricity system. Since electricity falls within the ETS, the economic signals to drive this transformation are expected to be in place. Nuclear energy is increasingly recognised as a key and growing contributor to this goal in an increasing number of Member States.

In recent statements, the Commission is gradually becoming more positive and proactive: first, on the value of nuclear for achieving decarbonisation goals (with the traditional caveat of ‘for those Member States that choose this path’); secondly, on the importance of the EU being a technology leader; and finally, on the enormous potential of Small Nuclear Reactors.

Against this backdrop, the next Commission will need to determine how to support these developments effectively. This webinar looks to review developments in the nuclear sector and ask – What’s next for the EU?

• How are the new investments being financed and what is coming down the road?
• How advanced is SMR development, and when can we expect the first investments? Should the EU’s safety and security evolve to reflect the unique challenges of SMRs?
• Should EU financing instruments be made available for nuclear investments?
• What other actions will be necessary for the next Commission to support nuclear energy?
• How will the EU’s approach to State aid for nuclear evolve, considering the CfD requirement in the NZIA?
• EU technology leadership in nuclear is an important goal – what needs to be done?

Keynote address:

Jan Panek | DG ENER

Panel debate:

Brian Scott-Quinn | ICMA-Center

Aymen Grira | Westinghouse

Antoine Bizet | EDF

Moderators:

Christopher Jones | FSR
Andris Piebalgs | FSR

This debate will discuss how the regulatory framework might support the additional massive investments required in electricity networks over the next decades, by providing the appropriate incentives, manage risk effectively, continue to attract investors to the sector and protect present and future consumers.

Draft Programme

Introduction to the Debate and Opening Presentations

14.00 – 14.05    Introduction to the Debate

Alberto Pototschnig | Florence School of Regulation

14.05 – 14.20    The EU Action Plan for Grids: The Policy Perspective

Raphael Sauter | Team Leader, Electricity, DG ENER C.4, European Commission

14.20 – 14.30    The regulatory perspective

Mara Berzina | Secretary General, CEER

Panel Discussion: Introductory Remarks, Polls and Comments

Moderator: Ilaria Conti | Florence School of Regulation

14.30 – 14.50    Introductory remarks from the panellists
Carmen Reittinger-Hubmer-Ruck | Co-Convenor of the Economic Framework Working Group, ENTSO-E
Peter Claes | President, IFIEC Europe
Pierre Schlosser | Deputy Director, Florence School of Banking and Finance, EUI

14.50 – 14.55    Polls

14.55 – 15.20    Comments on the polls outcome and Q&A from the audience
Panellists

15.20 – 15.30    Concluding remarks
Ilaria Conti | Florence School of Regulation
Alberto Pototschnig | Florence School of Regulation

• How can EU effectively support and retain its energy-intensive industries?
• Is the CBAM effective? What reforms could enhance its role in safeguarding EU industry?
• Do existing trade policy tools adequately shield against unfair competition? If not, what measures should be considered?
• A reform of State aid is announced. What are the concrete changes that are needed?
• What additional actions are required to enable the EU to decarbonise and to retain energy intensive industry, especially in strategic sectors?

• Adina Georgescu, Eurometaux
• Markus Kerber, former CEO of BDI
• Ronnie Belmans, KU Leuven
• Ioana Petcu, Eurelectric

The REPowerEU Communication, published by the European Commission in 2022, confirmed the previously set target of 10 million tons (Mt) of renewable hydrogen to be produced in the EU by 2030 and added a target of 10 Mt of imported renewable hydrogen on top of it. Still in 2022, hydrogen accounted for less than 2% of Europe’s energy consumption and was primarily used to produce chemical products, such as plastics and fertilisers.

In order to facilitate the market uptake of hydrogen and in particular its upscale to the international dimension, the Commission envisaged the development of three major hydrogen import corridors via the Mediterranean, the North Sea area and, as soon as conditions allow, with Ukraine; at the same time, it supported the development of Green Hydrogen Partnerships, to facilitate the imports of green hydrogen while supporting the decarbonisation in the partner countries.

Alongside the natural matching of demand with supply, and the development of the necessary infrastructure, what is further needed as to set the basis for an international trading of hydrogen, seems to be a robust system of reliable and mutually recognised certification system.

Worldwide certification systems are typically based on aligned understanding of terminology and standardization, as well as on trust.

The EU and the US seem to be the first movers on getting to an agreed set of rules/definitions. Regarding terminology, the European Commission enshrined in regulation the definition of renewable hydrogen (as belonging to the category of RFNBOs, Renewable Fuels of non-biological origin) and has recently opened a consultation aiming to complete the definition of low-carbon hydrogen. In the US, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) includes comparable rules focusing on hydrogen’s generation emission intensity.

On EU RFNBO Certification, the EU Commission is evaluating different types of certificates. These certification schemes can be used by a production company to serve the needs of its customers and want to offer products meeting certain sustainability criteria. However, these certificates are only voluntary at present. Identifying and implementing mandatory standards should probably become the very first step to advance international certification of hydrogen traded products.

If so, are there any best practises to build on? Where are the main bottlenecks?

Programme

Introduction to the Debate and Opening Presentations

14.00 – 14.05 Introduction to the Debate

Ilaria Conti | FSR

14.05 – 14.20 Certification Requirements in the EU

Ruta Baltause | DG ENER

14.20 – 14.30 Certification Requirements in the US

Chelsea Baldino | ICCT

Panel Discussion: Introductory Remarks, Polls and Comments

Moderator: Alberto Pototschnig | FSR

14.30 – 15.00 Introductory remarks from the panellists

Maximilian Kuhn | Hydrogen Europe

Peter Biltoft-Jensen | Ørsted, Energy Traders Europe

Katrien Verwimp | AIB

Nicolai Romanowski | CEFIC

Francisca Gallegos | University of Eastern Finland 

15.00 – 15.25

Discussion and Q&A with the audience

15.25 – 15.30 Concluding remarks

Ilaria Conti | Florence School of Regulation

Alberto Pototschnig | Florence School of Regulation

In this joint FSR-NYU episode of #FSRDebates, we explore Voluntary Carbon Markets (VCMs) as they have emerged as a mechanism for organizations and individuals to offset their carbon emissions by purchasing carbon credits. While they hold promise to contribute to global carbon reduction efforts, they face several challenges that hinder their effectiveness and credibility.

VCMs often lack a unified global regulatory framework, leading to inconsistencies in standards and methodologies across different markets. This fragmentation can result in differences in the quality and reliability of carbon credits. Transparency issues and insufficient verification mechanisms can lead to double-counting, overestimations of carbon reductions, and fraud.

Ensuring that projects genuinely contribute to carbon reductions is a significant challenge. Moreover, concerns exist about the social impacts of certain carbon offset projects, particularly those involving land use changes.

Addressing these and other challenges requires serious efforts to create a more transparent and equitable carbon market that can effectively contribute to global climate goals. Our discussions in this episode will carefully examine all these aspects. The tri-continental perspective the debate brings aims to help understand the complexities of VCMs and enrich ongoing discussions, facilitating informed decision-making across various sectors and disciplines.

Keynote Speaker

Nat Keohane | President, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

Damien Meadows  | Legal and Policy Advisor, DG Climate Action

Debate

Peter Vis | Senior Adviser, Rud Pedersen Public Affairs, Brussels

Gregory Trencher | Kyoto University

Conclusions 

Simone Borghesi | FSR

Moderators

Marzia Sesini | FSR

Christoph Graf | NYU

This FSR Debate will discuss which hydrogen infrastructure vision is more likely to prevail in the period to 2030 and, more generally, what this implies for the development of the renewable/low carbon hydrogen sector.

Despite the fact that renewable and low-carbon hydrogen represents one of the pillars of the EU decarbonisation and system integration strategies, there is still significant uncertainty regarding how the sector will develop in the years to come and what this implies for the hydrogen transport infrastructure. In 2020 and again in 2022 the EU set goals for the production and import of renewable hydrogen. However, an agreed ‘target model’ for the nascent hydrogen sector is still to emerge. This might impact the development of the hydrogen transport infrastructure. Reference is often made to a ‘no-regrets’ network. But what would this be?

This FSR Debate will compare two visions – one mostly based on ‘hydrogen valleys’, similar to the current setting of the sector, and another one bases on the development of an EU-wide hydrogen backbone network- and discuss how they could contribute to a ‘no-regrets’ approach to the hydrogen network and what this implies for the development of the renewable/low carbon hydrogen sector.

Programme

Introduction to the Debate and Opening Presentations

14.00 – 14.05 Welcome to the Debate

Ilaria Conti | Florence School of Regulation

14.00 – 14.05 Introduction to the Debate

Alberto Pototschnig | Florence School of Regulation

14.05 – 14.20 the EU vision on hydrogen transport infrastructure

Lukas Wernert | Policy Officer, Decarbonisation and Sustainability of Energy Sources, DG Energy, European Commission

14.20 – 14.30 The regulatory perspective for the EU hydrogen transport infrastructure

Csilla Bartok | Head of Department, Gas, Hydrogen & Retail. ACER

Panel Discussion: Introductory Remarks, Polls and Comments

Moderator: Ilaria Conti | Florence School of Regulation

14.30 – 14.50 Introductory remarks from the panellists

María Sicilia | Chairwoman, European Hydrogen Backbone Initiative

Jorgo Chatzimarkakis | CEO, Hydrogen Europe (TBC)

Peter Claes | President, IFIEC Europe

Abel David Enriquez Rodriguez | Moderating Team, ENNOH Foundation Process  

Ralph Bahke | CEO, ONTRAS and Board Member, GIE 

14.50 – 14.55 Polls

14.55 – 15.20 Comments on the polls outcome and Q&A from the audience

Panellists

15.20 – 15.30 Concluding remarks

Ilaria Conti | Florence School of Regulation

Alberto Pototschnig | Florence School of Regulation

Background

Renewable and low carbon hydrogen is currently considered one of the pillars for the decarbonisation of energy demand. The 2020 EU System Integration Strategy1 included “the use of renewable and low-carbon fuels, including hydrogen, for end-use applications where direct heating or electrification are not feasible, not efficient or have higher costs” as one of the concepts to deliver low-carbon, reliable and resource-efficient energy services, at the least possible cost for society.

In 2022, hydrogen accounted for less than 2% of Europe’s energy consumption and was primarily used to produce chemical products, such as plastics and fertilisers. 96% of this hydrogen was produced from natural gas, resulting in significant amounts of CO2 emissions. Therefore, the 2020 EU Hydrogen Strategy2, unveiled at the same time as the System Integration Strategy, defined a roadmap for the development of renewable and low-carbon hydrogen. The Strategy set the priority for the EU to develop renewable hydrogen, while recognising that in the short and medium term other forms of low-carbon hydrogen are needed.

In terms of short-term ambition, the Hydrogen Strategy set strategic objectives:

• For the period to 2024, to install at least 6 GW of renewable hydrogen electrolysers in the EU for the production of up to 1 million tonnes of renewable hydrogen;
• For the period to 2030, to install at least 40 GW of renewable hydrogen electrolysers for the production of up to 10 million tonnes of renewable hydrogen in the EU, with an additional objective of 10 million tonnes imported from third countries later set by the REPowerEU Plan3.

Beyond 2030, “renewable hydrogen technologies should reach maturity and be deployed at large scale to reach all hard-to-decarbonise sectors where other alternatives might not be feasible or have higher costs”4.

Two visions for the development of the renewable/low-carbon hydrogen market and the supporting network are possible:

• One based on hydrogen valleys, i.e. local hydrogen clusters based on decentralised renewable hydrogen production and local demand, transported over short distances. This is the model currently prevailing.
• One based on an EU-wide hydrogen market, with “unhindered cross-border trade and efficient allocation of hydrogen supply among sectors”5.

The Hydrogen Strategy seemed to favour the second vision, at least for the 2030 horizon and beyond.

In order to support this vision, a suitable infrastructure is required:

• In the REPowerEU, the Commission indicated its intention to support the development of three major hydrogen import corridors via the Mediterranean, the North Sea area and, as soon as conditions allow, from Ukraine.
• An increasing group of energy infrastructure operators, under the European Hydrogen Backbone (EHB) initiative, have been looking at and proposing how a EU-wide hydrogen network could be developed, mostly by repurposing gas infrastructure no longer used in the future. The latest (EHB) report highlights a set of 40 projects managed by the EHB’s TSO members, representing 31.500 km of hydrogen pipelines with expected commissioning prior to 2030. By 2040, the backbone network should extend to close to 40,000 km. Two thirds of this network will consist of repurposed infrastructure.

Moreover, the 6th List of Project of Common Interest in 2023 included 65 hydrogen and electrolyser projects. Of these, 17 projects (some of which include several components) related to hydrogen transport infrastructures (although in some cases defined quite generically).

However, so far the hydrogen sector seems to be developing at the local level. All seven projects which were allocated support at the first auction of the European Hydrogen Bank earlier this year envisage the production of renewable hydrogen for local consumption (possibly for the production of ammonia), including in the same industrial complex6.

The regulators are also taking a cautious approach to the hydrogen network in Europe. Both at the 38th European Gas Regulatory Forum in Madrid in April and at the 10th Energy Infrastructure Forum in Copenhagen in June different views were expressed regarding which hydrogen network will be needed and by when. It seems that the sector is looking for a ‘no-regrets’ approach to the hydrogen network, which however risks of pushing the debate into a vicious circle. What such an approach will be depends on how much and where (renewable and low-carbon) hydrogen will be produced and consumed, or imported into the EU. This partially depend on the cost of producing such hydrogen. However, until it is clear which infrastructure will be available, it is unlikely that project beyond those with a local footprint will emerge.

What seems to be missing at the moment is a ‘hydrogen target model’, an agreed vision for the development of the hydrogen sector, in the same way as the ‘electricity target model’ and the ‘gas target model’, although very different in shape, guided the integration of the electricity and gas markets in Europe.

A separate, although related, issue is how any hydrogen network will be paid for. Regulation (EU) 1789/20247 allows, probably for the first time in modern European regulatory history, cross-subsidisation of the hydrogen infrastructure across time and from natural gas network users. The extent to which this cross-subsidisation is needed will depend on the size of the hydrogen network to be developed and the way in which it will be developed.

With the winding down of the current Commission, thoughts are moving to ‘what should be the priorities for the next Commission’s mandate?’

This question is coming at an important time, where many observers argue that the EU’s current approach is ‘under fire’ and that the ‘Fit for 55’ package has placed challenges for EU industry that threaten our competitiveness. Indeed, the Commission has already suggested that the ‘Industrial Green Deal’ will be a forthcoming priority.

A Panel of two former Energy Commissioners- Miguel Arias Cañete and Andris Piebalgs– and two former Deputy Directors-General of Energy of the Commission – Christopher Jones and Klaus-Dieter Borchardt – will debate this question, and try to suggest some priorities.

Catharina Sikow-Magny, the DG ENER Director for Green Transition and Energy System Integration of the European Commission will act as moderator, and ask questions, including those from the audience.

Questions to be addressed by the Panel will include:

• How should the next Commission/Co-legislators approach the EU’s 2040 GHG target? What are the consequences for EU citizens and industry of this?
• What new legislative initiatives should be taken to make sure that the EU meets 2040 target (and indeed the 2030 one)?
• Do we already need a 2040 RES target?
• How should the ETS and CBAM be revised during the next Commission?
• What should the EU do to ensure the competitiveness of its industry? What could the ‘Green Industrial Deal’ be?
•  Do you expect the EU’s GHG, RES and energy efficiency 2030 targets to be met? If not which ones, and what should be done to put us back on course?
•  What next for buildings?
• Is the EU’s hydrogen policy ‘fit for purpose’? What needs to be done?
• The Carbon Management Strategy now needs to be implemented – what should the Commission propose in concrete terms to kick-start CCUS?
• Should the EU ‘roll-back’ its technology specific target-driven approach to energy policy.? If so, why and how?
• Should the EU put a price on methane emissions?

Join us for what will surely be an entertaining and informative debate!

This online debate organized in the context of the EU-funded project LNGnet, will discuss how to include emissions intensity information in LNG Agreements

The importance of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) in Europe’s overall energy mix has considerably increased in the last three years: since the Russian aggression to Ukraine in February 2022 and its impact on EU gas supply strategy, LNG imports to Europe have grown and LNG has proven to be a valid and reliable instrument to quickly compensate for the sudden shortage of Russian gas via pipeline.

LNG is likely to remain as part of the EU energy mix for some decades, particularly for its important contribution to energy stability and security of supply. At the same time, Europe cannot forget its climate targets and commitments. Upstream and import regulations are going to evolve in the next few years, as to facilitate the achievement of decarbonisation commitments; in parallel, technological pathways are going to evolve, affecting market conditions and global players’ behaviours and drivers.

Therefore, it’s reasonable to think that, going forward, in LNG contracts (Sales and Purchase Agreements, SPAs) a differentiation of the product depending on its carbon or emission intensity will automatically emerge: the more emissions associated with the production of feed-gas or its liquefaction and transport, the higher the costs of both its production and use in the destination market.

How should this information be tackled? What are the possible challenges in making it compatible or even standardized as to facilitate trading in a global market like LNG?

While not addressing the question of measurement, reporting and verification of said emission intensity values, this workshop will debate how carbon intensity can be taken into account and translated into LNG contracts, how it may be structured and which information would need to be considered for the relevant provisions.

Programme

Introduction to the Debate and Opening Presentations

14.00 – 14.05 Introduction to the Debate

Ilaria Conti | FSR

14.05 – 14.20 Specialised WG5: LNG Trading Arrangements in the Context of the Energy Transition

Gunnar Steck | LNGnet Team Leader

14.20 – 14.30 EU Energy Prospects

Adam Szolyak | Policy Officer, DG ENER

Panel Discussion: Introductory Remarks, Polls and Comments

Moderator: Alberto Pototschnig | FSR

14.30 – 14.50 Introductory remarks from the panellists

Luis Ignacio Parada | President of Gas LNG Europe, Gas Infrastructure Europe

Kim Talus | Professor of Energy Law at UEF Law School, University of Helsinki

Andreas Guth | Policy Director, Eurogas

Michaela Duve | Chair Legal Committee, Energy Traders Europe

14.50 – 14.55 Polls

14.55 – 15.20 Comments on the polls outcome and Q&A from the audience Panellists

15.20 – 15.30 Concluding remarks

Ilaria Conti | Florence School of Regulation

Alberto Pototschnig | Florence School of Regulation

The FSR Policy debate will focus on the strategies and partnerships needed to strengthen Ukraine’s energy resilience and pave the way for a greener, more sustainable future.

In the wake of targeted attacks on civilian infrastructure by Russia, Ukraine’s energy sector has suffered significant damage, resulting in supply chain disruptions and economic setbacks. The destruction of coal-fired generation facilities has added pressure to expedite the restoration of existing capacities while simultaneously pursuing sustainable, forward-looking solutions.

Despite these challenges, Ukraine is forging ahead with ambitious green recovery initiatives aimed at modernizing its infrastructure, bolstering energy security through decentralization, and prioritizing domestic energy resources. By embracing clean energy technologies, Ukraine seeks not only to recover from war-induced setbacks but also to accelerate its transition towards a sustainable future.

However, achieving these objectives amidst ongoing war and economic instability demands increased international support. Join us for a discussion on the strategies and partnerships needed to strengthen Ukraine’s energy resilience and pave the way for a greener, more sustainable future.

Programme

Introduction by Andris Piebalgs and Christopher Jones, FSR

Keynote presentation: Olena Pavlenko, PhD, President and co-founder of the Ukrainian DiXi Group think tank and the Ukrainian Energy website.

The presentation will be followed by a panel debate with Albéric Mongrenier, Executive Secretary, European Initiative for Energy Security and Walter Boltz, Senior Advisor – European Energy, as speakers.

Conclusions by Andris Piebalgs and Christopher Jones, FSR