Laragh Lee<\/strong>, Associate at Trinity International<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
Ashurst<\/a> hosted the panel session Energy Disputes in an Era of Peak Uncertainty<\/em>, which examined how geopolitical changes and the energy transition are reshaping the nature (and frequency) of energy disputes. The session opened with a keynote address from Dr Katja Yafimava<\/a> <\/strong>(Oxford Institute for Energy Studies,) followed by a panel discussion with Oisin Brady (Gaoithe Renewable Energy), Tania Tholot (Brattle Group<\/a>) and Professor Peter Cameron<\/strong><\/a> (Queen Mary University of London), moderated by Emma Johnson<\/strong><\/a> (Ashurst<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dr. Yafimava framed her keynote speech around the \u201cEnergy Trilemma\u201d energy security, environmental sustainability and energy equity, and questioned whether current geopolitical pressures are increasingly forcing trade\u2011offs among these policy goals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Focusing on Europe, she explained that Russia\u2019s invasion of Ukraine fundamentally changed Europe\u2019s understanding of energy security. Today, energy security is commonly equated with the near\u2011complete elimination of Russian gas from Europe\u2019s supply. While Russian gas continues to reach Europe in limited volumes, dependence has fallen sharply and EU policymakers continue to tighten restrictions on Russian imports.<\/p>\n\n\n\n She outlined several key developments, including the March 2025 ban on transshipment of Russian LNG (liquified natural gas) through EU ports and further proposals aimed at ending all Russian gas imports by the end of 2027. In her view, these measures are complex and likely to generate disputes in its implementation. Dr Yafimava also highlighted that any future peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine would introduce uncertainties, with even a partial return of Russian supply potentially disrupting restructured markets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dr Yafimava observed that Europe did not experience a physical gas shortage during the crisis; the primary challenge was price insecurity. Government intervention and imported LNG allowed supply to be secured, though at high cost. Increased reliance on LNG has, however, introduced new risks, including the safety of maritime routes, infrastructure adequacy, and tensions between spot pricing and long-term contracts, which can create opportunities for price arbitrage. Broader EU\u2013US trade relations, including potential tariffs on US LNG, add another layer of uncertainty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the EU context, Dr Yafimava explained that sustainability is largely equated with decarbonisation. As domestically produced renewable energy reduces reliance on external suppliers, decarbonisation has become closely aligned with energy security. She described the energy transition as an engineered process, driven primarily by policy and regulation and influenced by shifting political priorities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Addressing energy equity, or affordability, Dr Yafimava observed that Europe has limited influence over global supply and therefore faces challenges competing on price with other regions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n She concluded her keynote by tying her remarks back to the session\u2019s theme, observing that ongoing uncertainty, coupled with structural changes predating the war, is likely to give rise to further disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The panel explored how these dynamics translate into disputes and the broader implications for the energy sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The panel agreed that security of supply and price volatility were key drivers of disputes. Tholot explained that gas prices rose sharply after Russia\u2019s invasion of Ukraine in response to anticipated supply risks. When some projects later proved significantly cheaper, this misalignment triggered disputes, particularly where contracts lacked price review mechanisms. Parties frequently invoked hardship or force majeure clauses to exit or renegotiate contracts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Brady highlighted that many renewable projects are stalled due to insufficient grid capacity. However, regulators in several countries are revisiting grid queue arrangements, including by removing inactive or \u201csquatting\u201d projects that block renewable developments. These reforms are critical to the bankability of renewables projects and will inevitably be a source of disputes as rules evolve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The panel also discussed how grid infrastructure must also adapt to accommodate new entrants, such as data centres. Although data centres consume electricity differently, Brady stressed that they must still operate as part of the broader grid. Given that such actors are unlikely to respond to price signals in the same way as traditional participants, regulatory intervention will be required to ensure their effective integration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cameron noted that the rapid pace of the energy transition itself generates dispute risk. The deployment of new technologies, or repurposing of old technologies, can compromise commercial reliability, producing disputes that differ from traditional construction claims. Looking to the supply chain, Cameron observed that the energy transition is leading to a more mineral-intensive economy. Mineral-producing states are increasingly aware of their bargaining power and are renegotiating existing agreements, not only for critical minerals but also for traditional resources. In some cases, states are terminating agreements altogether. The rebalance of negotiating power, together with political change in these regions, may further increase the risk of disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the possibility of a return of Russian gas, Tholotnoted that the EU gas market has adapted to the absence of Russian gas through reconfigured supply chains and revised pricing structures. A return of Russian gas would affect gas pricing mechanisms and could have knock-on effects for renewables, especially where contracts reference different pricing hubs. Historically, such shifts have given rise to disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From a renewables perspective, Brady suggested that the return of cheaper Russian gas could have contradictory effects. While it might reduce the urgency of the development of renewable energy projects by lowering fuel prices, it could also make such projects more affordable. The overall impact, he admitted, would be difficult to predict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Johnson remarked that gas continues to play a central role in the energy transition. Because gas sets electricity prices, expensive gas translates into expensive power. She added that demand for gas is likely to increase further, particularly in light of rising defence spending.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Johnson also noted that certain sectors, such as fertilisers in agriculture, have no viable alternative to gas, making its availability a food security issue. While LNG may offer an alternative, it introduces its own risks, including exposure to global price competition. Algeria, for example, remains a material gas exporter to Europe, including LNG, but exports have been constrained by domestic demand growth. She concluded that LNG alone will not resolve Europe\u2019s affordability challenge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Brady added that other forms of renewables may play a greater role in the future. Technologies such as batteries can enable higher renewable penetration without gas acting as the marginal price setter, though this raises political questions, as supply chains for such technologies are dominated by China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The panel agreed that arbitration is likely to remain the primary forum for resolving energy disputes. Users will continue to test whether arbitration can deliver outcomes that are faster and cheaper than alternatives. At the same time, arbitration needs to ensure that it retains its integrity and legitimacy, particularly as new players in the energy sector increasingly challenge conventional practices, including the arbitration process itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\nKeynote Address: Dr. Katja Yafimava<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Energy Security<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Sustainability<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Energy Equity<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Panel Discussion<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Security of Supply and Price Volatility<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Grid Access and the Energy Transition<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The Impact of a Return of Russian Gas<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Arbitration and Dispute Resolution<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/2024-02-LVYAP-dj-banner-1024x358.png\")
<\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"