London Arbitration Week 2025
THE AUTHOR:
Laragh Kee, Associate at Trinity International
Ashurst hosted the panel session Energy Disputes in an Era of Peak Uncertainty, 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 (Oxford Institute for Energy Studies,) followed by a panel discussion with Oisin Brady (Gaoithe Renewable Energy), Tania Tholot (Brattle Group) and Professor Peter Cameron (Queen Mary University of London), moderated by Emma Johnson (Ashurst).
Keynote Address: Dr. Katja Yafimava
Dr. Yafimava framed her keynote speech around the “Energy Trilemma” energy security, environmental sustainability and energy equity, and questioned whether current geopolitical pressures are increasingly forcing trade‑offs among these policy goals.
Energy Security
Focusing on Europe, she explained that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine fundamentally changed Europe’s understanding of energy security. Today, energy security is commonly equated with the near‑complete elimination of Russian gas from Europe’s 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.
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.
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–US trade relations, including potential tariffs on US LNG, add another layer of uncertainty.
Sustainability
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.
Energy Equity
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.
She concluded her keynote by tying her remarks back to the session’s theme, observing that ongoing uncertainty, coupled with structural changes predating the war, is likely to give rise to further disputes.
Panel Discussion
The panel explored how these dynamics translate into disputes and the broader implications for the energy sector.
Security of Supply and Price Volatility
The panel agreed that security of supply and price volatility were key drivers of disputes. Tholot explained that gas prices rose sharply after Russia’s 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.
Grid Access and the Energy Transition
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 “squatting” 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.
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.
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.
The Impact of a Return of Russian Gas
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.
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.
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.
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’s affordability challenge.
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.
Arbitration and Dispute Resolution
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.
Drawing on his experience in ICSID (International Center for Settlement of International) proceedings, Cameron observed that arbitrators increasingly conduct proceedings with an awareness of potential annulment or set-aside challenges, including on the basis of allegations of corruption. He noted that this cautious approach reflects the evolving environment in which energy arbitration now operates.
Looking ahead
In concluding the discussion, the panellists highlighted several emerging areas to watch. Tholot emphasised the often underappreciated cost of the energy required to transport electricity and suggested that, subject to public acceptance, nuclear power could address this challenge. Brady pointed to uncertainty surrounding far-right energy policies, particularly in relation to renewables policies, which he described as “out-there”.
Cameron returned to the impact of new actors in the energy industry, noting that investment funds entering the market often bring expectations shaped by experience in other jurisdictions, including a greater willingness to pursue arbitration. He observed that these newer actors differ significantly from traditional oil and gas companies, both in their approach to risk and in their expectations regarding legal and commercial frameworks, contributing to a shifting dispute landscape.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Laragh Kee is an Associate in the International Arbitration team at Trinity International. Laragh holds an LL.M in Transnational Arbitration and Dispute Settlement from Sciences Po Law School, Paris, and an LL.B in Law and French from Trinity College, University of Dublin.
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
