European grid investment plans face 250 billion euro shortfall
At the end of April, Spain and Portugal lost power in their worst blackout. Last week there was a power outage in large parts of the Czech Republic. Such incidents have added to concerns about the resilience of Europe's electricity system.
Increased electrification, power demand growth from AI and data centres, renewables integration and ageing infrastructure mean that Europe's grids need a massive overhaul.
The report did not provide detail on subsidies some grid operators might receive. Some TSOs can receive subsidies through EU funding programmes or member state initiatives.
Europe's 15 largest TSOs are expected to increase operating cash flow to 120 billion euros from 2025-2029, up from 57 billion euros for 2020-2024, the report said.
They plan to triple capital investment to 345 billion euros over the next five years.
Assuming dividends between 25 billion and 30 billion euros would also need to be paid, this would leave a funding gap of about 250 billion euros, the report said.
This would need to be plugged through debt, equity, divestitures or lower dividends, the report added.
Europe needs to build more grid infrastructure over the next five years than it has over the past two decades, the report said.
Balance sheets of TSOs are under strain. Many are operating with high debt and publicly traded TSOs are struggling to raise equity in the face of fierce competition.
"Without rapid innovation in how we finance grid infrastructure, Europe risks having world-class renewable generation that can't reach consumers because the grid hasn't kept pace," said Tom Brijs, BCG partner and co-author of the report.
($1 = 0.8528 euros)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
30 minutes ago
- Telegraph
How Trump is torpedoing Ukraine's reconstruction efforts
When it comes to the outlook for post-war Ukraine, hope springs eternal among the international community. Last week, scores of Western leaders, along with an army of NGOs, and thousands of businesses from around the world descended on Rome for the ambitiously named 'Ukraine Recovery Conference'. In the words of the organisers, the purpose of the summit was to devise a roadmap that will lead to 'the swift recovery and long-term reconstruction of Ukraine'. Hosted by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, high-profile attendees included Donald Trump's special envoy to Ukraine Keith Kellogg, Volodymyr Zelensky, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. In the build-up, the illustrious think tank Chatham House released an upbeat survey of what so-called 'civil society organisations' wanted from post-war reconstruction. Anti-corruption measures and assistance for young people in overcoming the trauma of war featured heavily on a wish list of the Ukrainian people, the report said. Over two packed days, there were sessions on how to repair Ukraine's crippled energy infrastructure, attract investment in the country's critical minerals, and ways to revitalise its shattered manufacturing industry. One panel, attended by foreign ministers from across Europe, was entitled: 'Ukraine's path to the EU'. Zelensky said the pacts that would be forged in the Italian capital would 'make Ukraine stronger'. But no amount of warm words and well-intentioned diplomacy can disguise the fact that Ukraine's future continues to be dictated by the whims of one man: Donald J Trump. A false start The reconstruction of a country that has suffered more than three years of relentless bombardment, will mostly come down to the generosity of strangers – mainly in the West. Without significant outside funding – much of it from private investors – Ukraine is destined to remain a hollowed-out husk for a generation or more. Yet in the days leading up to the Rome pow-wow, hopes for Ukraine's resurrection suffered a major setback after it emerged that Wall Street asset management giant BlackRock, a linchpin of efforts to raise tens of billions for the post-war rebuild, was no longer involved. Even more alarming for Ukraine, reports claim that it was ultimately Trump's election that prompted BlackRock to get cold feet and pull out. In the aftermath of Russia's invasion, the investment powerhouse was pivotal in the creation of something called 'The Ukraine Recovery Fund'. Described as Ukraine's 'Marshall Plan' – a nod to the US economic aid that paid for the reconstruction of Europe following the Second World War – the project was the brainchild of Australian billionaire Andrew 'Twiggy' Forrest. Yet having made his fortune amid the dirt and dust of Australia's frontier mining towns, Forrest needed someone with the heft to bring together global investors willing to pledge serious money to the fund. After a meeting between Zelensky and BlackRock chief Larry Fink, the Ukrainian government proudly announced that the Wall Street titan had agreed to coordinate 'the efforts of all potential investors and participants in the reconstruction of our country'. Weeks later, BlackRock confirmed it would 'advise the MoE [Ukraine's ministry of economy] on establishing a roadmap for the investment framework's implementation'. Forrest predicted that Ukraine would 'enter a golden era'. Fast forward to 2024, and Philipp Hildebrand, vice chairman of BlackRock, was confident that his firm had managed to raise in the region of $2.5bn (£1.8bn) from a club of Western allies, development banks, and private investors. The figure could eventually top $15bn, he thought. Yet even at the upper end of Hildebrand's estimates, it still would only have been a small fraction of the $525bn that the World Bank and others believe it will take to piece Ukraine back together. Forrest was even more optimistic – he envisaged the fund eventually having $100bn at its disposal. Such sums now look wildly overstated with the future of the fund undoubtedly hanging in the balance. Forrest had already expressed his reluctance to remain involved while the US president was talking about enforcing a peace deal on Ukraine that didn't have the blessing of the Ukrainian people. The expectation in Rome was that BlackRock would be in a position to unveil a big commitment from a consortium of investors. With it gone, who will coordinate fundraising from the capital markets now? Reports suggest France had been working on an alternative proposal but without heavyweight American backers, there are doubts about whether it would get off the ground. BlackRock's loss will be felt hard in Kyiv and beyond – but the way that Trump continues to cast a shadow over its sovereignty will be felt harder. It is indicative of a figure whose attitude towards Ukraine has flittered between indifference and outright hostility – in front of the world's media at the White House, no less – only for his stance to soften after repeated humiliations at the hands of a defiant Vladimir Putin. Such inconsistency appears to have ultimately been the catalyst for BlackRock's change of heart. Reports suggest that it was forced into an about-turn because Trump's flip-flopping had spooked the investors it was trying to round up. 'The only conversations that drive our decision-making are those with our clients,' a spokesman said. Failure to communicate Washington's chaotic approach is encapsulated in the debacle surrounding the Pentagon's recent decision to halt weapons deliveries to Ukraine. The move blindsided even those who are usually closely briefed on such matters, including members of Congress, State Department officials and key European allies, Politico reports. According to CNN, the list of people that Pete Hegseth, the US defence secretary failed to inform before authorising a pause on shipments included the president himself. With the White House seemingly unable to make up its mind on where it stands on Ukraine, it leaves the country's ability to determine its own destiny more uncertain than ever. The US is, by some margin, the largest single donor to Ukraine. It is also the biggest provider of military support. Kyiv is facing a deficit of as much as $19bn this year, largely driven by declining US assistance. The Kiel Institute for the World Economy, a German think tank, calculates that the US has provided just over €115bn (£99bn) of support to Ukraine – €3.4bn in humanitarian aid, €47bn in financial assistance, and €65bn in military funding. The country that has provided the next largest amount of aid is the UK, at €19bn. Some experts believe renewed US backing could change the course of the war. Some observers believe a different approach is required altogether. 'Past Ukraine Recovery Conferences have convened thousands of experts and produced grand ideas, with zero follow-through,' American diplomat Kurt Volker wrote in a piece for the Centre for European Policy Analysis, a Washington-based think tank. There are several obstacles to genuine progress, in his view. First, 'no one has taken charge of supporting Ukraine's economic recovery,' and secondly, 'war risk' – with the Kremlin's bombs still raining down on Ukraine 'major private investment has stayed on the sidelines', Volker, a former US ambassador to Nato, said. Victory on the battlefield has to come first, and that can only happen if Western funding increases dramatically to around $150bn from roughly $100bn a year, Timothy Ash, strategist at RBC Bluebay Asset Management, said. With the US looking to do the opposite and reduce its share, European leaders should bankroll the war effort with the $330bn of Russian central bank assets that are frozen in bank accounts across the continent, he said. Yet, concerns about the possible violation of international law, the destabilisation of financial markets, and possible Russian reprisals against Western companies that still have assets in Russia, have ensured the funds remain untouched. 'It's Russian taxpayer money, so we are spending our taxpayers' money to protect theirs. We're imbeciles and there can be no recovery and reconstruction unless you win the war,' Ash said.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
The Wolseley's global takeover is thriving. Investors and Keir Starmer should take note
There was consternation among London restaurant -goers when their favourite venue, owned by their favourite restaurateur, was acquired three years ago by a Thai-based group. It was feared The Wolseley, adored by many, including Lucian Freud (whose regular corner table was covered with a black cloth and a single candle following his death) and AA Gill, would be no more. It would not be the same without Jeremy King, its co-founder, greeting regulars and attending to every last detail. But fears The Wolseley would lose its cachet have proved groundless. The restaurant and its siblings, including The Delaunay, Colbert and Brasserie Zedel, plus a new Wolseley in the City, are thriving. The Wolseley remains as it was, known far beyond London for its 'Parisian cafe meets Viennese dining room' menu, spectacular but intimate room, and warm ambience. The numbers speak for themselves. Last year, the original Wolseley sold 21,803 schnitzels, 7,542 pancakes, 45,750 afternoon teas and 29,837 oysters. As a group, the restaurants managed 18,358 champagne bottles and 91,306 glasses, 99,013 schnitzels, 15,755 pancakes and 49,104 afternoon teas. Wolseley parent company, Minor International, turned in thumping annual results, including record net profits. Now Minor is taking the business international, and going further still, by opening The Wolseley Hotels. Proof that no single person is bigger than the brand, and evidence that what they created is capable of developing and expanding into a money-making machine Minor is so-called because it was founded by entrepreneur Bill Heinecke when he was underage. American-born Heinecke started in business in Bangkok at the age of just 14, in 1963, while he was still in high school. He persuaded the editor of the Bangkok World newspaper to let him write a column on go-karting, securing advertising space alongside it. This initiative was so successful that he took over the paper's advertising manager position. When Heinecke left school at 17, he decided he wanted to set up on his own. He borrowed $1,200 from a backstreet moneylender to register his first two companies: Inter-Asian Enterprise, which provided office cleaning services, and Inter-Asian Publicity, an advertising company. The holding company was Minor Holdings – for the first year, his mother had to sign the paychecks on his behalf. Over nearly six decades, he grew Minor into a major powerhouse, encompassing hospitality (Minor Hotels), food (Minor Food) and lifestyle retail. Pivotal was the 2018 acquisition of Spain's NH Hotel Group, tripling Minor's hotel portfolio and propelling it to leading world hospitality player. Today, Minor owns 560 properties with 85,000 rooms across 57 countries. They will be joined by four new brands – The Wolseley Hotels, Colbert Collection, Minor Reserve Collection and iStay Hotels – to help Minor achieve its aim of reaching 850 hotels and 4,000 restaurants by the end of 2027. It's all part of Heinecke's bold vision. When asked which was his best decade, he is quick to answer: 'My best decade has yet to come.' Ian Di Tullio, chief commercial officer of Minor Hotels, said the Wolseley Hotels will 'take multiple cues' from the restaurant in Piccadilly. 'Like the restaurant, the hotel will be a place where formality melts away, replaced by friendly familiarity and glamour without pretension. Rituality and attentiveness are at the heart of the guest experience, where every guest will be treated to our effortless balance of class and etiquette, from their welcome by The Wolseley Hotel's door person to the stay rituals delivered by a team passionate about the craft of hospitality.' Minor is looking to open Wolseley Hotels in New York, Paris, Singapore, Hong Kong and Dubai and other key centres. London is also earmarked as 'a fantastic location and a natural fit'. Di Tullio said: 'We will be very particular and deliberate about where we open The Wolseley Hotels properties, growing its footprint slowly with partners who share our vision for the brand experience. This will be a carefully curated rollout, with each new location thoughtfully chosen to be a perfect match for the brand's character and values.' He added: 'Brands are a brilliant way to endorse existing customers and find new ones.' He makes the point, though, that it does not apply to all. 'The Wolseley is an iconic brand with soul and character, and an individual creativity – there are very few of them, which is why we want to start a new hotel portfolio with our existing brands.' Nevertheless, he has a product – Britain has a product – that is internationally transferable, provided standards are maintained. 'There is pure theatre, pleasurable impact for anyone entering The Wolseley and we want to celebrate and to share that special sense of luxury with a new global audience. We will do that respectfully and carefully and with passion.' So, The Wolseley brand sustains and is expanding. Rather than the world taking over a uniquely British label, that British label is taking over the world. It shows what Britain is capable of, with an injection of self-belief and commercial strength and savvy. What began as a car showroom was, through imagination and flair, transformed into an exceptional restaurant, then widened. Now it's to be raised to another level, across the globe, in hotels. Credit to Minor and Heinecke for having the idea and for going where others have not. You realise that a Paris or Brussels restaurant could not make the leap, they just don't have that same internationally-admired British style. We could make so much more out of this as a country, as an economy. It does make you wonder what other loved and homegrown brands could achieve with the application of similar faith and a fair wind. Investors, brand proprietors and Keir Starmer and his teams devoted to exporting British soft power, please note.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
I'm too ill to travel – why won't the hotel refund me?
Q Is it legal or reasonable for a hotel not to offer any sort of refund? I was booked to stay at a well-known hotel chain this coming Saturday night. Unfortunately, I am ill and can't go. The hotel has refused to refund me. It seems quite harsh that it's a flat 'no' like this! A The hotel responded to your polite request for a refund by saying: 'Unfortunately due to the cancellation policy, the amount due is not refundable even if the booking is cancelled or modified.' I checked the conditions for the 'advance saver' you booked; in return for a 15 per cent discount on the regular, flexible rate (refundable until midnight the night before), it makes quite clear you are not getting your money back. Sorry. Yet there is rather more to your case than that. I have tried to make a booking for Saturday night and found the place is full up. The website says: 'Unavailable for the selected dates'. There are two possibilities that I can see: one is that the hotel will have an unoccupied room on Saturday night because you won't be showing up; that would be a shame. The other is that the hotel has deliberately overbooked. Hotels often predict a certain number of no-shows of people who have booked and paid in advance, perhaps selling 102 rooms in a 100-room hotel. (I recently asked at the front desk of a four-star hotel in Brussels if they had any rooms available that night, and was told 'minus two' – ie it was overbooked.) Whichever explanation is correct, I think it would be fairer and commercially smart on a busy night to allow you to change dates for a fee or to allow you to cancel completely for, say, a 50 per cent refund. Then the hotel could resell your room with confidence, and probably price it at significantly more than the £95 you paid due to strong demand. For now, though, I fear all you can do is spend your hard-earned money elsewhere in future. Q What countries have you not been to? Steve Holland A Far too many to mention. While I relish visiting new nations, I am in no sense a 'completist' wanting to visit every country in the world. I am sure the scattering of island nations across the Pacific have their charms, but I won't be putting together a complicated, expensive and time-consuming itinerary to visit them. (I have, though, been to Easter Island, part of Chile, which I wholeheartedly recommend.) My most pressing wish is to explore more of Africa. In the west, I have heard great things about Sierra Leone and Ghana. Congo looks fascinating. And, in the southeast, Malawi and Mozambique are tempting. In the Indian Ocean, Reunion (technically part of France) and Madagascar appeal. In the Middle East, I will be visiting Lebanon for the first time this October, but Syria, Iraq and Iran I will save for later. The main Asian nations I long to visit are Pakistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. I have tried to visit the last of those. The authorities refused to issue a visa. I hope officials in Ashgabat may be more lenient next time. North Korea? I would much prefer to visit when this strange land is freed from tyranny. In South America, my 'missing' nations are the sole Dutch and French representatives on the continent, Suriname and French Guiana. I will reach them one day. Mostly, though, I am desperate to explore more of the countries I have already visited. I am looking forward to returning to Ukraine – as well as Belarus and Russia – when the war ends; tourism is a force for healing after conflict. Large swathes of Turkey look enticing, as do Georgia and Armenia. At the other end of Asia, I have barely done Indonesia justice, and will do so soon. Finally, the more I see of the great European nations – France, Spain, Italy, Germany... – the more I want to return. Q I am going to Belgium in early September. I don't think we have time for Bruges, Ghent and Antwerp. Which two of those would you choose? John Gregory A Without question, Antwerp and Ghent. Bruges is a superbly preserved medieval city with a magnificent, Unesco -listed historic centre. But in summer it is Belgium's strongest contender for overtourism, especially when a big cruise ship docks at nearby Zeebrugge. According to maritime sources, vessels will call at the port on most days in the first half of September. Bruges and Ghent are sometimes portrayed as similar – but in my view, the latter has more to offer. Rivers and canals slice Ghent into a collection of enticing quarters. You can survey them from the top of the 14th-century belfry – accessible by 366 steps. The first cultural highlight is a superb Modern art museum, Smak. Next, a spectacular work of art, The Adoration of the Mystic Lamb by Jan and Hubert Van Eyck, on display in the cathedral; it is also known as the Ghent altarpiece. And Citadelpark has much to offer, including the beautiful University Botanic Gardens, with 10,000 species of plant, and MSK – the Museum of Fine Arts. Antwerp is twice the size of Ghent and more industrialised, but the city centre is eminently walkable. The central station is more than a busy transport hub: it is a palace of mobility and the grandest possible entry point to a city. The impressively refreshed Royal Museum of Fine Arts (also known as KMSKA) is lots of fun. Antwerp's Flemish renaissance Grote Markt feels like a more enjoyable central square than even the Grand-Place in Brussels. Both Antwerp and Ghent offer superb food and drink at reasonable prices – as does everywhere else in Belgium. Just in case you have time en route from Antwerp to Brussels airport or main railway station for your journey home, Mechelen is well worth a lunch stop, too. Q I was booked to fly from the Maldives to Doha and onwards to London on Qatar Airways on the day the Iranians fired their missiles at the Al Udeid Air Base. The flight to Doha was cancelled. Ground staff at the airport could only give me a slip of paper telling me to contact the local Qatar Airways office. That was impossible; two emails only got automated replies. So I bought full-price British Airways tickets home for the following day. Qatar now refuses to pay any compensation or expenses and has only offered a refund of the unused return portion. Of course, I accept the cause was beyond the airline's control. Even though it was a 'non-UK sector' that was cancelled, because the whole journey started and finished in London, that gives me UK rights, I think? Leon D A Your experience mirrors mine last November when Qatar Airways cancelled a flight from Kathmandu to Doha, not in such dramatic circumstances as yours. The carrier washed its hands of the matter, offering a replacement flight a week later. I ended up spending £1,300 to get home via Bangkok. Qatar Airways issued a refund for the return leg promptly, but it didn't cover even half of that cost. You have, I'm afraid, become the latest traveller to learn of the loophole in British and European air passengers' rights rules. They do not apply to a non-European airline flying from outside the UK or the EU. So there is no obligation to find another flight or provide hotels and meals. This is infuriating and should be addressed. Rules notwithstanding, the passenger-friendly course of action for Qatar Airways would have been to rebook you immediately on the British Airways flight for which you ended up paying top whack. But tens of thousands of passengers were stranded in various locations. Many of them, such as those flying out for the UK, were covered by air passengers' rights rules. So it is unsurprising that they were prioritised. If you happen to have been on a package holiday to the Maldives, then the holiday company is required to look after you and should recompense you. Otherwise, I suggest you try your travel insurer.
