On the 29th of January 2025, PubAffairs Bruxelles organised an afternoon of discussion on the conditions to foster pragmatic and competitive European energy markets. The event was also a timely opportunity to discuss the role of gas in the EU energy transition, with our distinguished speakers Tom Howes, Adviser, European Commission, DG ENER; Benjamin Lakatos, CEO, MET Group; Samuele Furfari, Professor, Energy Geopolitics, ULB and ESCP Business School and Raphael Hanoteaux, Senior Policy Advisor, E3G.
The debate was moderated by Alice Hancock, EU energy correspondent for the Financial Times.
Alice Hancock opened the debate by introducing the topic of discussion by stating that it was very pertinent within the framework of the 2024-2029 EU legislative term and referring to the European Commission’s launch of its Competitiveness Compass, which addresses, among others, the decarbonisation and the EU’s roadmap towards its net-zero goals.
The moderator opened the panel discussion by inviting Tom Howes to outline the European Commission’s vision for the future of the EU energy market, particularly in the context of the Union’s transition away from fossil fuels towards a greener, more secure energy system, independent of unreliable partners. She also asked him to elaborate on the role that gas might play in supporting a more competitive and decarbonised European economy.
Tom Howes began by noting that the concept of net-zero has been around for some time, and highlighted the persistent tensions within the so-called “energy trilemma”, namely the need to balance sustainability, affordability and security within the EU energy system. He then pointed to the significant shift triggered by the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing energy crisis. In response, the European Commission launched the REPowerEU initiative, reflecting the urgent need to replace Russian gas with alternative energy sources in the short term, such as large-scale LNG imports.
At the outset of the crisis, Tom Howes observed, Europe had limited options due to its heating needs – both residential and industrial – which constrained immediate choices. However, he remarked that, as Europe experienced volatile gas prices and growing concerns over supply, the traditional trilemma began to be less relevant. Indeed, with renewable energy prices decreasing and domestic production increasing, the security and affordability pillars are now more aligned with the EU’s sustainability goals than before.
Mr Howes also explained that the European Commission remains committed to diversifying gas supplies, promoting energy efficiency and sobriety and accelerating the expansion of renewables. He confirmed that these trends are expected to continue. Additionally, he stated that the Commission would soon present details for a 2040 energy policy framework aimed at setting clear interim targets. He also mentioned ongoing consultations with the broader gas sector on how existing infrastructure could support sustainability goals, including the roles of biogas and hydrogen in meeting the EU’s energy transition targets.
The moderator followed up by asking Tom Howes about the possible courses of action the European Commission was considering within the forthcoming Affordable Energy Plan and the levers it could pull to meet decarbonisation goals, whilst reducing costs.
Tom Howes expressed some concerns about the instruments at the European Commission’s disposal for the Clean Industrial Deal and the Action Plan for Affordable Energy. Indeed, the speaker wondered to what extent the toolbox has changed since the energy crisis, when the Commission already had a toolbox of actions to take in the short term via European funds. The speaker also elaborated on the possible future actions EU member states could take in terms of national tax or tariff regimes and short-term measures for system operators. Since then, he continued, new legislation has been enacted to build on those initiatives, including the electricity market design revision and the setting of more ambitious targets on efficiency and renewables within the REPowerEU initiatives.
Tom Howes also expressed concerns about a slow or ineffective transposition of many pieces of EU legislation on energy as opposed to the new European Commission’s emphasis on proper, thorough and complete implementation. He made the example of the creation of flexibility in electricity markets, which also comes from flexible gas supplies. He added that the energy transition is meant to be faced with greater flexibility of demand and of the roll-out of batteries. To make the market thrive, there is the framework enshrined in the 2019 Clean Energy Package, whose implementation is being cemented through the final stages of the Network Codes. Nevertheless, Mr Howes stated that it would be necessary to find new or clearer ways to engage with EU member states, industry stakeholders and national regulators to ensure a smooth implementation of those regimes, so that an efficient energy market and consumption can lower the costs for end-users.
The moderator then moved to Benjamin Lakatos to ask him about the role companies such as MET could play in helping policy-makers bring down prices and improve the picture for the European industry as a whole in transitioning away from fossil fuels.
Benjamin Lakatos started his reply by stating that he was more inclined to steer the debate on efficiency first, whilst acknowledging the importance of the green transition and adding that the industry needed more clarity and reliance on how EU-wide policies are going to evolve. He expressed the belief that competition could play a pivotal role in forcing prices down and help the European institutions’ energy policy agenda. He also highlighted the fact that rules are sometimes changing swiftly, whereas companies have to adapt whilst providing continuity of service by remaining competitive. However, he also regretted any vocal attitude by the industry towards European and national regulators, as the green transition must be seen as a work in progress.
Indeed, Mr Lakatos expressed the opinion that the gas transition will take more than is currently assumed, maintaining that the future will be fully power-based in the very long term. The opinion in the midstream gas industry is that not using the existing gas infrastructure would not be a cost-efficient solution. In this respect, he specified that MET fully supported the Draghi Report whilst challenging it on the energy infrastructure. Benjamin Lakatos argued that the existing gas infrastructure should be sufficient from a market perspective, and that we should finish the ongoing investments around Europe. In doing so, he stressed the advantages of having a great infrastructure and a centralised market. On this very note, he highlighted the existence of both an integrated energy market as a value and the Title Transfer Facility, the main European reference for gas trading in Europe which is based in Amsterdam. These aspects of the EU Single Market represent a remarkable added value for the Old Continent as, without them, Europe would not be able to maintain a global influence in the sector.
Mr Lakatos expressed the belief that, with market-based solutions, the industry can deliver more on the prices. He then concluded his intervention by stating that, regarding the “energy trilemma”, more should be done on efficiency, on driving the prices down and eventually use the energy and the financial savings to achieve the EU green transition’s goals.
The moderator followed up with Benjamin Lakatos asking whether, when it came to the industry stepping up its efforts to drive down energy prices, that would be triggered by efficiency or other tools as well.
In response, Benjamin Lakatos argued that standard market practices could play a key role. He explained that, in times of crisis, companies tend to build financial reserves, reduce credit exposure and increase borrowing, although the financial sector simultaneously raise collateral requirements. He noted that these dynamics also contribute to higher energy prices. However, if market players were able to restore mutual trust and confidence in the system, he estimated that energy prices could decrease by 20-30%.
The moderator then asked Samuele Furfari whether he considered the EU’s plans to transition away from gas overly ambitious, and how he viewed these efforts within the broader geopolitical context.
Samuele Furfari argued that a fundamental flaw in European energy policy is the overemphasis on electricity, which represents only 22% of the final energy demand. Drawing from his experience at the European Commission during the drafting of the Green Paper on Energy Efficiency, he recalled the absence of reliable data on heating, an omission, in his opinion, due to the lack of a functioning market that took six years to get EU institutions to address. Samuele Furfari questioned the rationale of focusing on electrifying the remaining 78% of energy demand when renewable electricity targets have not been met yet. He stressed that the bulk of energy use in industry and households still relies on combustion powered by gas, coal and oil.
He also criticised Mario Draghi’s assertion that gas would be nearly phased out by 2030, noting that 70% of Europe’s gas is used outside power plants, primarily for heating and industrial processes, such as chemical manufacturing. Highlighting the German chemical sector’s struggles due to the loss of affordable gas, he emphasised that methane remains a cornerstone of EU chemical and hydrogen production. The speaker also pointed out the low load factors of wind (23%) and solar (11%) energy, arguing that, without adequate backup, primarily from gas, these sources cannot meet the demand reliably. He also stated that nuclear energy, whilst important in some countries such as France, lacks flexibility and concluded that gas will continue to play a vital role in Europe’s energy future.
The moderator then turned to Raphaël Hanoteaux, asking whether he agreed that Europe’s energy strategy was overly focused on electricity at the expense of gas.
Raphaël Hanoteaux responded by emphasising the significant shift in the global energy landscape since the 2022 crisis, exacerbated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He noted that, whilst Russian gas has been sold at a low cost, it came with a heavy geopolitical price which Europe continues to pay. Reflecting on this, he described a new “energy trilemma” for the EU, namely choosing between dependence on geopolitically risky suppliers such as Russia, Qatar or the United States under Donald Trump or facing volatile and expensive LNG markets, or pursuing renewable energy and efficiency as a path to greater independence, resilience and lower costs. Citing the Draghi Report, Mr Hanoteaux argued that the latter option best aligns with the EU’s strategic goals. He also warned that continued reliance on gas, especially from unstable geopolitical sources, is, in many respects, unsustainable in the medium and long term. He also advocated for accelerating electrification and investment in renewables as a key to achieve economic resilience and affordable energy.
Benjamin Lakatos interjected to emphasise that industry leaders are calling for pragmatism, namely making use of the existing infrastructure, reducing energy production costs and simultaneously investing in innovation. He warned that reliance on external energy supplies was a strategic error, highlighting that the EU imports 90% of its natural gas consumption.
The moderator then turned to Tom Howes, inviting him to outline the European Commission’s stance on accelerating electrification, particularly in hard-to-decarbonise sectors and the role of green hydrogen.
Tom Howes acknowledged that progress was too slow across some fronts, including implementing current legislation, developing flexibility in the energy market and fostering emerging technologies, such as green hydrogen. He reiterated the importance of the EU’s long-term climate goals with interim benchmarks published in 2024, namely 33% electrification of final energy consumption by 2030, rising to around 50% by 2040. These targets, he said, provide direction whilst allowing flexibility for member states depending on cost, technology readiness and market dynamics. Whilst this approach is pragmatic, he also stressed the urgency of faster implementation, particularly as the EU is lagging behind in achieving its climate goals.
Building on these remarks, the moderator asked Samuele Furfari whether greater reliance on gas could undermine the EU’s position as a climate leader.
Samule Furfari responded by pointing to the global energy landscape, citing a recent LNG deal signed by Pakistan with a plant under construction in Louisiana as an example of rising global demand for gas. He argued that several countries consider gas essential for industrial growth and electricity generation. He criticised the EU for ignoring these global trends, and claimed that President Donald Trump’s so-called “energy revolution” is merely the continuation of long-standing US investment policy of expanding gas production. The speaker reiterated that gas is indispensable not only to support intermittent renewables such as wind and solar, but also for heating and for energy-intensive industrial processes such as glass and steel manufacturing, which, he argued, cannot yet be powered by green electricity alone.
Prompted by a question on MET Group’s investments in greener technologies for hard-to-abate industries, the moderator asked Benjamin Lakatos about the challenges involved and whether EU regulations are somehow hindering progress.
Benjamin Lakatos echoed Samuele Furfari’s position, affirming that hard-to-decarbonise sectors still rely heavily on gas, as electricity cannot replace its role for the time being. He shared observations from his travels outside the EU, where he noted a global resurgence in gas demand, underscoring what he described as a disconnect between Europe’s energy policy and the world’s ongoing need for gas. At the same time, the speaker stressed the importance of energy security, warning that the EU’s dependence on imported natural gas also exposes Europe to geopolitical risks. To maintain competitiveness on the global stage, he argued, Europe must pursue innovation-driven solutions, with the green transition representing a key opportunity.
Samuele Furfari acknowledged that Europe faces geological limitations in gas production and that drilling is largely prohibited. Nevertheless, he argued that Europe’s intense focus on reducing dependence on Russia risks overlooking the global reality, namely that gas is far from being phased out. Citing the International Energy Agency’s 2011 special report on the question of a possible golden era of gas, which projected 225 years of global gas reserves, Samuele Furfari emphasised that, despite being sidelined by the Paris Agreement, those findings still hold true. He concluded that the world remains rich in gas resources and, in such a context, geopolitical concerns should not dictate the EU’s energy strategy agenda.
The moderator asked Raphaël Hanoteaux whether the EU should participate in the global dash for gas and what alternatives E3G was considering for heavy industries struggling to electrify.
Raphaël Hanoteaux criticised part of the discussion as reflective of a “1990s-style”, “End-of-History” worldview, for example, the assumption that gas could be sourced globally without geopolitical or environmental consequences. He identified two key issues missing from such arguments: first, the methane leakage across the gas value chain, with methane being significantly more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO₂, and, second, the social and political constraints around gas extraction in Europe. Referring to Samuele Furfari’s remarks on the ban on drilling, Mr Hanoteaux emphasised the need to consider the public’s concerns and the geopolitical complexities that now make gas a less suitable energy option.
The moderator then turned to Tom Howes, referencing European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s call to increase US LNG imports in the short term as a way to reduce reliance on Russian gas and stabilise prices. She asked whether the Commission was leaning more towards securing US LNG or broadening energy diversification in the next mandate.
Tow Howes pointed to initiatives such as AggregateEU, an EU-level tool aimed at improving access to gas markets, as a sign of the European Commission’s policy direction. He acknowledged that the current US administration made it easier for the EU to reduce its trade deficit and increase LNG imports in the short term.
In response to a follow-up on how this would align with long-term decarbonisation goals, Mr Howes explained that, whilst current long-term contracts typically span 15/20 years, their terms are set by suppliers and buyers, who retain the flexibility to renegotiate based on market developments. He also expressed confidence that such contracts, ending around 2040, would not compromise the EU’s 2050 net-zero objectives.
Benjamin Lakatos added that long-term contracts are crucial for the European industry to secure stable and affordable energy prices. However, he also highlighted industry concerns about the ambiguity of net-zero legislation and its implications for companies entering long-term agreements. He called for clearer and more precise communication from policymakers to help the industry navigate the transition.
Samuele Furfari pointed out that large European energy companies were buying gas around the world with 25-year contracts not to deliver it to the EU, but to third countries at very good prices. He claimed that the EU could not do the same because of its fears of climate change, and that, as a consequence, it is going to pay more for its gas and for its electricity and would eventually lose a part of its economic competitiveness potential.
The moderator asked Raphaël Hanoteaux what short-term measures could help the energy sector avoid large-scale reliance on fossil fuels.
Raphaël Hanoteaux cited recent studies showing that up to 90% of process heat could be electrified, arguing that many industrial processes were indeed viable for electrification. He dismissed generalised claims that certain sectors, such as heating, could not be electrified despite the existence of appropriate technology. He also emphasised that it is not fit-for-purposes to take Pakistan as an illustrative case, noting that in 2022, LNG shipments originally destined for Pakistan were diverted to Europe, resulting in major blackouts in the same country. The speaker also noted that, as a result of this process, the country subsequently sought long-term contracts to prevent such disruptions.
As a follow-up question, the moderator asked how investments in electrification could be made attractive when gas remains a cheaper alternative.
Raphaël Hanoteaux responded that this challenge required a blend of public and private financing, underpinned by strong political will. Whilst the GDP investment needed for the energy transition may appear high, he argued they are achievable. He further noted that the EU is projected to spend over €800 billion on fossil fuel imports by 2040, underscoring the importance of eliminating fossil fuel subsidies to redirect resources toward clean energy.
Tom Howes built on these comments, stating that such considerations would be reflected in the upcoming Affordable Energy Action Plan and Electrification Action Plan. He acknowledged that high electricity prices remain a significant barrier, partly due to an outdated taxation structure that burdens more electricity compared to gas. He also explained that the European Commission is reviewing how network tariffs and levies affect electricity prices and is examining whether cost savings could be achieved through improved interconnectivity, smarter infrastructure use and a more dynamic flexibility market to prevent price spikes.
The moderator then asked Benjamin Lakatos which levers the Commission could use to incentivise electrification investments in the energy industry.
Benjamin Lakatos emphasised the need for stronger competition rules. Whilst agreeing on the fact that electrification technologies are available, he argued that their current costs were unaffordable for many industrial players. He noted that MET Group has invested in renewables through both Power Purchase Agreements and merchant models. He added that the group has also been an early mover in green hydrogen, entering the German market in 2023 by acquiring a 50% stake in a start-up. Although MET signed binding contracts and memoranda of understanding with over 100 industrial actors during the energy crisis, these did not translate into firm commitments due to the high cost of green hydrogen compared to natural gas. Benjamin Lakatos added that this did not imply that green hydrogen is unviable, but rather that current technologies, market conditions and regulatory frameworks are not yet conducive to making it a scalable solution.
The speaker then proposed beginning the energy transition with blue hydrogen, which, though more affordable than green hydrogen (costing roughly one-third as much), remains two to three times more expensive than natural gas. He noted that persuading buyers to pay a premium for the same energy output would either require new legislative frameworks or hinge on the environmental commitments of specific industries. Simultaneously, he emphasised the ongoing need to reduce energy costs to enhance efficiency and preserve European competitiveness.
Citing MET Group’s forecasts, Mr Lakatos predicted an oversupply of energy in the coming years, suggesting that, from a European buyer’s standpoint, the natural gas market would remain more attractive over the next two to three years, unless a surge in demand emerges from Asian markets. He concluded by underscoring the importance of clear and dependable regulation, along with a more pragmatic approach to the energy transition.
The moderator asked Samuele Furfari to comment on the question on hydrogen.
Samuele Furfari offered a historical perspective on hydrogen, noting that the first to present it as an energy resource was John Haldane in Cambridge on the 4th of February 1923. He was followed by Germany, which, acknowledging their lack of access to liquid fuels, considered hydrogen but ultimately chose to convert coal into liquid fuels. Hydrogen resurfaced in the European policy sphere in the 1960s with the signing of the Euratom Treaty, he added. At that time, nuclear energy was widely believed to be the future, whilst some argued that Europe would generate so much nuclear power that it would be inefficient to use it solely for electricity, which then accounted for just 22% of energy use. He also stressed the need for “burning fuels”. Hydrogen returned to the political agenda under Romano Prodi’s Commission in 2000, and again under Ursula von der Leyen’s Commission in 2020, he specified.
Samuele Furfari subsequently argued that hydrogen would never be viable if produced via electrolysis, citing fundamental thermodynamic constraints. He stated that hydrogen can be sourced either from hydrocarbons, chiefly methane, or from water. Breaking water molecules requires seven times more energy than breaking methane, he explained, making electrolysis inefficient in comparison. According to Furfari, of the 130 million tonnes of hydrogen produced globally each year, the vast majority is derived from natural gas, with a smaller proportion from coal in countries such as Indonesia and China. He concluded that electrolysis was an impractical method when abundant methane could be used instead.
The moderator then invited questions from the audience, selecting one for Tom Howes on the prospects for large-scale hydrogen deployment in the EU and a realistic timeline.
Tom Howes responded that, whilst investments and pilot projects are ongoing, it was a misconception to believe the Commission’s renewable subsidies path was the only one available. He clarified that multiple pathways remained open, including the development of a hydrogen economy centred on molecules and associated infrastructure.
The moderator also asked Raphaël Hanoteaux how realistic he believed the hydrogen trajectory to be.
Raphaël Hanoteaux agreed with Samuele Furfari that hydrogen is a valuable molecule with various future applications, such as home heating and transportation, but stressed that it would never match the affordability of natural gas. He then called for a highly strategic approach to hydrogen use, focusing on sectors that are genuinely hard to electrify. Whilst he acknowledged hydrogen’s climate-neutral potential for combustion, he considered 2030 too short a horizon for any meaningful deployment. With no fully functional hydrogen market in place, he suggested that a grounded and substantive debate on its role would only become possible in another decade.
Samuele Furfari recalled that a former European Commission official had once written a caustic article on hydrogen raising concerns about the premature focus on hydrogen production using green electricity. He then argued that it made little sense to divert green electricity towards hydrogen production before achieving 100% renewable electricity coverage across the broader system.
The moderator asked Benjamin Lakatos whether it was reasonable, from an industry perspective, to argue that green electricity should reach full deployment before being used to produce hydrogen.
Benjamin Lakatos responded that such a transition would be too drastic in the short term, noting that the EU was still purchasing 50 billion cubic meters of gas annually from Russia, including both piped gas and LNG. Whilst he acknowledged that Central and Eastern Europe could adapt in the long term to a shutdown of the Ukrainian transit pipelines thanks to storage capacities, he warned that the current LNG infrastructure in Greece and the Balkans would be insufficient to compensate if supplies through the Turkish stream were disrupted. According to MET Group estimates, a particularly cold winter could drive demand higher than the volume delivered through Ukraine over the past two years. According to the speaker, as long as TurkStream continued to operate, Europe’s supply security would remain manageable.
The moderator then turned to Tom Howes to ask how the European Commission was addressing energy supply security as it prepared its roadmap to phase out Russian fossil fuels in March.
Tom Howes responded that the EU currently had the largest energy storage capacity in the world, was more interconnected than ever, especially in terms of East-to-West gas flows, and was actively building stronger partnerships with alternative gas suppliers. He noted that EU imports of Russian gas had already dropped by 40% in two years, and acknowledged the remaining role of LNG imports. He also announced that, on the anniversary of the REPowerEU Package, the European Commission would publish a report outlining its rationale for further reducing gas and oil imports from Russia, reinforcing the position that Russia should no longer be considered a reliable energy partner.
Samuele Furfari contributed to the discussion by citing Poland as a positive example of forward-thinking gas security planning. Prior to the war in Ukraine, Poland had already decided to stop importing gas from Russia by 2040. It built an LNG terminal near the German border, created the LitPol pipeline to connect with Lithuania, and – under the Juncker Commission – secured EU funding for an interconnection with Denmark to access Norwegian gas. In contrast, he highlighted Slovakia’s lack of preparation, suggesting that the country should have secured long-term supply contracts through Croatia’s Krk LNG terminal. Samuele Furfari reiterated the global abundance of fossil fuels and urged the EU to proactively organise its supply security instead of relying on Russia.
Raphaël Hanoteaux offered a broader perspective, encouraging a shift in mindset from ‘security of supply’ to ‘energy security and resilience’. Whilst accepting short-term reliance on US energy, he argued that meaningful reductions in gas consumption could be achieved through relatively simple measures, such as improving the energy efficiency of buildings, steps that would not only enhance resilience but also benefit the European economy directly.
Moreover, whilst agreeing that Slovakia should have organised itself, Mr Hanoteaux dismissed the idea of excessively focusing on energy supply when it would be wiser to focus on other aspects, such as decreasing one’s own energy demand.
Benjamin Lakatos suggested framing the energy transition from a financial viability perspective, emphasising that Europe’s shift to cleaner energy would require investment in the range of thousands of billions of euros. Neither the European Commission nor EU member states had the necessary funds, and even the private sector would struggle to mobilise capital at such a scale. As a result, he advocated for a pragmatic, phased approach, starting with smaller-scale projects to test feasibility and build momentum, and eventually scaling up efforts to enhance supply security and improve the EU’s global competitiveness.
The moderator then turned to Tom Howes for the Commission’s perspective on the future of biofuels under its new mandate.
Tom Howes reiterated that the European Commission remained committed to its climate objectives whilst addressing the practical challenges posed by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He stressed that bioenergy featured in the EU’s broader strategy as a short-term, cost-effective and pragmatic component of the energy mix. He added that several legislative safeguards were already in place, including biofuel sustainability criteria and a Union-wide database to track sustainable sourcing. He also highlighted the role of EU-funded research aimed at increasing the efficiency of bioenergy technologies, ultimately ensuring these resources meaningfully contributed to targets, such as those for gas reduction by 2030.
When asked whether biofuels represented a ‘pragmatic dream’, Raphaël Hanoteaux responded that only time would tell whether the EU’s current strategy would succeed. He acknowledged that biofuels tended to be more expensive, less abundant and more localised, casting doubt on whether they could ever fully replace fossil-based gas. He also expressed scepticism that green gas could fill the gap left by a full natural gas phase-out.
Samuele Furfari reinforced the point that biofuels were inherently local and economically unviable for large-scale transport. He advocated for a decentralised system of localised production facilities but warned that these would not offer economies of scale. Consequently, such a model would require subsidies, though it would not fundamentally alter the geopolitics of energy supply.
The Q&A session also covered the following issues: Whether the EU would outperform the US in the competition over energy transition policies, the impact of US non-federal initiatives on US energy policies, clean energy’s increased affordability, the state of play of the EU energy transition, whether the EU is on the right path with its energy transition, the role of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies, the impact of energy price volatility on the EU green transition, the role of global energy market dynamics and EU’s strategic positioning.
Do you wish to know more about the issues discussed in this debate? Then check out the selected sources provided below!
European Commission, REPowerEU roadmap
European Commission, ‘2040 climate target’
European Commission, ‘2050 long-term strategy’
European Commission, ‘A Competitiveness Compass for the EU’, 29th of January 2025
European Commission, ‘Clean energy for all Europeans package’
European Commission, ‘Green Paper on Energy Efficiency or Doing More With Less’, 22nd of June 2025
European Commission, ‘REPowerEU’
European Commission, ‘Sustainability criteria for biofuels specified’, 13th of March 2019
European Commission, ‘The future of European competitiveness: Report by Mario Draghi’
European Commission, ‘The Green Deal Industrial Plan’
European Parliament Legislative Train, ‘Revision of EU electricity market design’
International Energy Agency, ‘WEO Special report: Are we entering a golden age?’, June 2011
Samuele Furfari, ‘The Hydrogen Illusion’ (also available in French)
Samuele Furfari, ‘Energy insecurity: The organised destruction of the EU’s competitiveness’ (also available in Italian and in French)
