The uncomfortable truth about energy strategy in Europe

There is a gap in the energy conversation that not many want to admit, because while marketing statements continue to dominate, the system itself has already shifted toward accountability and proof.

Buildings account for around 40% of total energy consumption in the EU and 36% of emissions (EDA Europa), which makes them the single largest energy challenge across the region, yet most strategies still rely on targets, averages, and assumed performance rather than verified outcomes.

This is where the comparison with financial management becomes unavoidable, because no organisation would run its finances on assumptions, estimates, or outdated reports, and yet this is exactly how energy is still being managed.

Energy is still not managed like finances

Every organisation understands how to manage financial risk, because there are systems in place that provide continuous visibility, structured reporting, and clear accountability, which allows decisions to be made with confidence at board level.

Energy does not receive the same treatment.

Data is fragmented, delayed, and often unreliable, which means leaders are signing off on energy strategies without the equivalent of a balance sheet view, creating a situation where risk is not removed but hidden.

Energy spend may sit as a relatively small line on the P&L, but the risk associated with energy goes far beyond cost. An organisation’s sustainability position, its ability to access finance on favourable terms, and its attractiveness for investment or acquisition increasingly depend on having reliable, auditable energy data.

Without that foundation, decisions cannot be verified, performance cannot be trusted, and risk cannot be properly managed.

Around 75% of EU buildings are still classified as energy inefficient (European Commission), while renovation rates remain at roughly 1% per year, meaning the underlying problem is not being addressed at the pace required.

Efficiency gains without control

Efficiency improvements are being made, but overall demand is not falling in line with expectations, as increased usage and expanding operations continue to offset those gains.

This creates the illusion of progress without delivering real control. In financial terms, it is the equivalent of cutting costs in one area while allowing spending to rise elsewhere, resulting in no meaningful improvement.

European policy is clear in its direction, with the goal of a fully decarbonised building stock by 2050, and recent crisis-driven measures have shown that rapid reductions are possible, as seen in the 17% reduction in gas demand between 2022 and 2025 (IEEFA).

However, policy is no longer the limiting factor. Execution is.

The real risk sits on the balance sheet

Most organisations still frame energy as a sustainability issue, but energy performance now carries financial, operational, and reputational consequences that show up in due diligence, reporting, and long-term cost structures.

The risk is not missing a target. The risk is making decisions without evidence.

What needs to change

The shift required is not about ambition, but about adopting a financial mindset toward energy, where visibility is continuous, data is structured, and performance can be interrogated at any moment.

Energy needs to be managed like money, with clear baselines, ongoing tracking, and the ability to explain every deviation, because without that level of control, strategy will continue to drift away from reality.

Energy price volatility is now a financial risk

Energy prices don’t just fluctuate anymore, they move in ways that are hard to predict and even harder to plan for. Energy price volatility is now a financial risk.

For a long time, energy was treated as a cost you could manage, negotiate a contract, improve efficiency, and move on. That only works when prices are relatively stable.

That stability is gone.

The market has changed

Across Europe, energy prices now shift quickly, driven by supply issues, geopolitical tension, and the growing reliance on renewables that depend on weather conditions.

There are still calmer periods, but they sit within a wider pattern of disruption. Prices can rise sharply, then drop again, often without much warning. Electricity prices in the EU increased more than fourfold in a short period and remain vulnerable to geopolitical shocks, even after stabilising.

This is not a temporary phase, it is how the market behaves now.

Why this hits financial performance

When prices move like this, energy stops being a predictable cost. It starts affecting forecasts, margins, and investment decisions. What looked manageable at the start of the year can shift quickly, making budgets unreliable and long-term planning harder.

Energy is no longer just something operations deal with, it directly affects financial outcomes. The focus is usually on market prices, but the bigger issue is often internal.

Many organisations don’t have a clear view of how energy is actually used. Demand patterns are unclear, inefficiencies are hidden, and cost drivers are not well understood.

That makes it difficult to respond when prices change, because there is no solid baseline to work from.

Why this is becoming a board-level issue

This is where the shift happens. Energy volatility now affects financial planning, risk management, and overall performance, which means it can’t sit in the background anymore.

It needs to be understood at leadership level, in the same way as any other financial risk. You can’t control the market. But you can control how exposed you are to it.

That starts with understanding how energy behaves inside your organisation, not just what you pay for it, but what is driving it. Without that, you are reacting. With it, you can plan.

Volatility is not going away. The real risk is not being able to deal with it.

Energy has moved from a commodity cost to a critical resource that needs to be managed, understood, and accounted for, just like any other financial driver.

Energy risk moves onto the balance sheet

At the 2026 Dublin Real Estate Outlook event, James Byrne and Catherine Duggan will address a shift that is becoming difficult to ignore. Energy risk is no longer operational. It is financial.

Poor visibility on energy performance is already affecting asset value, forecasting, and investment decisions. When energy is not properly accounted for, risk remains hidden. When plans are based on incomplete insight, exposure increases.

“Organisations would never make financial decisions without proper accounts. Yet that is still how many energy decisions are made.”

The implication is straightforward. Energy needs to be managed with the same discipline as finance. That requires structured insight, clear accountability, and a way to test decisions before capital is committed.

For more information, go to: https://www.bisnow.com/events/dublin/state-of-market/dublin-real-estate-outlook-2026-10445

Back to

Knowledge Academy

sustainability

Why energy data quality matters more than volume

The biggest problem with energy and carbon data isn’t that it’s missing. It’s what we think is reliable.

Most organisations genuinely believe they have their numbers under control. Spreadsheets, smart meters, and automated reports give the reassurance that everything adds up. But scratch beneath the surface, and you’ll often find gaps, inconsistencies, and figures that can’t be traced back to the source. The data looks solid, but can you rely on it and more importantly, will it pass an independent audit process? When it comes to energy data, quality will always trump quantity.

The illusion of reliability

We live in the era of data. Most of us are surrounded by more information than we can process, and we’ve come to assume that volume equals truth. But we rarely stop to ask where the data comes from, how it’s managed, or what quality checks exist behind it.

Many of the processes we still use to gather and manage data were designed long before digital systems — some even before the advent of the personal computer. Over time, we’ve layered technology on top, automated the routines, and made them faster. But we haven’t always made them better.

This is especially evident in how we handle energy and carbon information. The systems most organisations use are patchy at best, far below the standard we’d ever accept for financial data.

What finance gets right

Executives in well-run businesses expect accuracy, traceability, and confidence in their financial reporting. Every figure is tied to a source. Every record is auditable.

Imagine managing company finances using only monthly bank statements — with no insight into what those transactions comprised, no ledger, and no verification. Most of us would call that unthinkable and predict the business wouldn’t last long. Yet that’s precisely how many are still managing their energy and carbon performance.

Yet, in our experience, most organisations have plenty of data. The problem is that it’s often siloed, inconsistent, outdated or unverified. You’d never accept unverified figures when acquiring a new business. You’d check every assumption, every claim, every piece of supporting data before signing the deal. If anything didn’t add up, you’d walk away. The same scrutiny needs to be applied to our energy data.

Moving from assumption to assurance

The first step is straightforward enough: structure. Following an established framework such as ISO 50001 is a good start. It gives us a system for collecting, validating, and reporting energy and carbon data. But structure alone isn’t enough. Data quality has to be actively managed.

This means having the right systems that make the data visible, trustworthy, and insightful for planning, monitoring, and reporting purposes, as well as validating what’s already there.

Because in the end, sustainability decisions are only as good as the data behind them. Treating energy and carbon data with the same rigour as financial data isn’t bureaucracy — it’s credibility. Because the real risk isn’t having too little data, it’s trusting data that can’t be trusted.

Back to

Knowledge Academy

sustainability

Energy security has become a business continuity risk

In March 2025, a transformer failure at Heathrow Airport's North Hyde substation shut down one of the world's busiest airports. The transformers dated from 1968. Oil samples had flagged moisture in a high-voltage bushing as early as July 2018 — but engineers took no mitigating action. When the equipment finally failed, nearly all emergency power sources would have been depleted before the main supply was restored (Kelly Review, 2025).

A month later, Spain's entire national grid collapsed. Flights grounded. Trains stopped. Hospitals scrambled for backup. These weren't freak events in fragile economies. They were infrastructure failures in two of Europe's largest, most developed nations.

The message is hard to miss. Electricity isn't just another operational cost — it's as foundational as cash flow or staffing. And when it disappears, so does your ability to operate. So what does your business continuity plan actually say about power?

What does energy security actually mean for business?

74% of business customers experienced a power outage in 2025, and 25% suffered direct financial losses (JD Power, 2025). Energy security isn't just about supply — it's about knowing how your buildings use power, where you're exposed, and having a continuity plan that goes beyond a backup generator.

Energy security costs EU member states billions — capacity mechanism spending alone reached €5.2 billion in 2022, doubling since 2020, then climbing another 40% in 2023 (ACER, 2024). For individual businesses, though, energy security is simpler: can you get the power you need, when you need it, at a price you can afford?

The traditional definition focuses on national supply — barrels of oil, gas reserves, import dependencies. That framing still matters. However, for a facilities manager in Dublin or a CFO in Manchester, energy security plays out differently. In practice, it comes down to three things: availability, affordability, and reliability.

Availability

Can the grid physically deliver what your building demands at peak times? Ireland hit an all-island peak demand record of 7,497 MW on 8 January 2025 (EirGrid/Green Collective, 2025). That's the system maximum — not the capacity available for your site specifically. Availability is increasingly constrained, and not every connection request gets approved.

Affordability

Ireland's average day-ahead electricity price reached €113/MWh in 2025, up from €108/MWh the previous year (KPMG Ireland Energy Outlook, 2026). Prices are volatile, and 92% of UK organisations expect energy price volatility to increase their product or service costs within 12 months (PwC UK Energy Survey, 2025). Budget certainty is evaporating.

Reliability

Even when supply exists and prices are manageable, delivery can fail. Storm Eowyn disconnected more than 30% of Irish electricity customers in a single event (EirGrid/Green Collective, 2025). Grid age, extreme weather, and rising demand all erode reliability.

Citation capsule: EU capacity mechanism costs doubled from approximately €2.6 billion in 2020 to €5.2 billion in 2022, then increased another 40% in 2023, reflecting the growing cost of maintaining energy security across European electricity systems (ACER, 2024).

Understanding why real efficiency starts with demand, not supply is the first step toward treating energy as a strategic asset rather than a background cost.

What happens when the power goes out?

One in four businesses that experienced a power outage in 2025 suffered direct financial losses — and 74% of commercial customers reported at least one outage during the year (JD Power, 2025). Those aren't edge cases. They're the norm.

The Heathrow failure is the most vivid example. The Kelly Review, published in May 2025 and led by former Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly, found that a 57-year-old transformer brought the airport to a standstill. Emergency power nearly ran out before mains supply was restored. The review confirmed that warning signs — moisture in the high-voltage bushing detected via oil samples in July 2018 — had been documented but not acted upon (Kelly Review, 2025; NESO, 2025).

The cost isn't just downtime

The financial impact extends well beyond the hours without power. Consider spoiled inventory, missed SLAs, overtime for recovery, reputational damage, and potential regulatory consequences. For organisations in healthcare, food production, or data-dependent sectors, even a short interruption can trigger cascading failures.

And the price of electricity itself keeps climbing. Average commercial electricity prices rose 6.7% per kWh in 2025 (JD Power, 2025). That's not a spike — it's a sustained trend. How many businesses have adjusted their financial forecasts accordingly?

Similarly, Spain's April 2025 blackout reinforced the same lesson at national scale. The entire country lost grid power. This wasn't a developing nation with fragile infrastructure — it was the EU's fourth-largest economy. Meanwhile in Ireland, Storm Eowyn demonstrated that extreme weather events can disconnect a third of all customers in one go.

Citation capsule: In 2025, 74% of business customers experienced at least one power outage — up from 73% the previous year — and 25% of those businesses reported direct financial losses, underscoring the growing operational risk of electricity disruptions (JD Power, 2025).

For a deeper look at how grid capacity constraints are becoming a business risk across Ireland and the UK, see our related analysis.

Why are businesses in Ireland and the EU more exposed?

Ireland's electricity demand rose 2.6% year-over-year in 2025. All-island peak demand hit a record 7,497 MW on 8 January. Gas still supplied 42.8% of generation despite renewables reaching 38.4% (EirGrid/Green Collective, 2025). The system is growing faster than it's decarbonising, and the safety margin is thinning.

Ireland's shifting energy mix

Wind power provided 32.7% of all-island electricity demand in 2025, up marginally from the previous year. But here's the tension: Ireland's wind dispatch-down rate hit 11.3% in the Republic. More than one in ten units of available wind energy was curtailed because the network couldn't absorb it (EirGrid/Green Collective, 2025). The country is producing renewable energy it can't always use.

At the same time, net electricity imports rose to 14.6% of demand, up from 11.7% in 2024. Ireland is becoming more dependent on interconnectors at the same time its domestic demand keeps climbing. That's a compounding vulnerability — one that would be fully exposed if interconnector capacity were disrupted during a peak period.

The EU picture isn't much better

Across Europe, network costs are forecast to increase 20-40% by 2030, and could rise by up to 100% by 2050 (ACER, 2024). Utilities will pass those costs through to commercial and industrial customers. Meanwhile, 83% of UK organisations surveyed by PwC expect their energy consumption to rise (PwC UK Energy Survey, 2025). Rising demand meeting rising network costs is a formula for financial pressure.

Ireland's grid carbon intensity sits at 234 gCO2/kWh (EirGrid/Green Collective, 2025). That matters for organisations electrifying their operations to meet net-zero targets. The network they're plugging into is still carbon-intensive. Electrification isn't automatically decarbonisation — it depends on what's generating the electrons when your building draws them.

Citation capsule: Ireland's all-island peak demand reached a record 7,497 MW in January 2025, with net electricity imports rising to 14.6% of total demand (up from 11.7% in 2024), increasing the country's exposure to interconnector disruptions during peak periods (EirGrid/Green Collective, 2025).

How does energy visibility reduce business risk?

PwC found that 47% of UK organisations have now pledged net zero by 2030, up from just 28% previously — yet the number one barrier they cite is high capital costs (PwC UK Energy Survey, 2025). From what we've seen, the cheapest and most effective first step isn't buying new equipment. It's understanding what you already consume.

You can't control the grid. You can't dictate wholesale prices. But crucially, you can control your demand — and that control starts with visibility. Knowing where energy is used, when consumption peaks, and where it's wasted gives you the information needed to act before a disruption forces your hand.

Demand knowledge as a financial hedge

When you understand your load profile, you can identify where flexibility exists. Maybe your HVAC ramps up 30 minutes before it needs to. Maybe electric vehicle charging could shift to off-peak windows without affecting operations. Perhaps hot water systems are running at temperatures higher than necessary, consuming energy without corresponding benefit.

In our experience, organisations that understand their demand profile before pursuing capital projects find significant reduction opportunities through operational changes alone. No new hardware. No capital expenditure. Just better use of what's already there.

Resilience through reduction

Reducing unnecessary demand doesn't just save money. It strengthens resilience in ways that aren't immediately obvious. A building that has eliminated waste runs cooler within its connection limits. It's less exposed to price spikes. Its critical systems can run longer on backup power.

And if the organisation plans to grow — adding EV chargers, heat pumps, or new equipment — optimising current consumption means growth isn't constrained by capacity limits.

Why would you invest in expanding capacity before you've confirmed you're using your current allocation efficiently?

Citation capsule: 47% of UK organisations have pledged net zero by 2030, up from 28%, but cite high capital costs as the primary barrier — suggesting that demand visibility and operational optimisation, rather than new capital investment, should be the first line of action for most businesses (PwC UK Energy Survey, 2025).

What should your energy continuity plan include?

With 74% of businesses experiencing outages and 25% suffering financial losses (JD Power, 2025), energy continuity planning should sit alongside cybersecurity and financial risk in any serious governance framework. Yet most business continuity plans mention electricity only as a single line item referencing a backup generator.

Generators alone aren't a strategy. After all, the Kelly Review of the Heathrow failure found that nearly all emergency power would have been exhausted before mains supply returned (Kelly Review, 2025). A generator you've never tested against a realistic outage duration isn't a plan — it's a hope.

An energy continuity plan should be treated with the same seriousness as financial risk management or cybersecurity. Here's what it should cover:

1. Demand baseline and load mapping

Document how your buildings use electricity across a full year. Identify peak demand periods, seasonal patterns, and the systems that drive consumption. You can't protect what you don't understand.

2. Critical system identification

Which systems absolutely cannot go down? Which can tolerate a brief interruption? Rank them. Then test whether your backup power can actually sustain the critical ones for a realistic outage window — not just the 30-minute scenario in the manual.

3. Backup power audit

When was your generator last tested under full load? How long can it actually run? Is the fuel supply contract reliable? Heathrow's experience showed that assumptions about emergency power can be dangerously wrong. Test annually at minimum, and simulate real conditions.

4. Supply contract review

Do you know what your electricity contract actually guarantees? Many commercial supply agreements contain force majeure clauses that limit liability during grid failures. Understand your exposure. Review terms annually.

5. Demand flexibility plan

Identify which loads can be shed, shifted, or reduced during a supply constraint. Real efficiency starts with understanding demand, not just managing supply. Document these options so they can be activated quickly.

6. Growth impact assessment

If your organisation plans to electrify fleet vehicles, install heat pumps, or expand operations, model the impact on your electricity demand before committing. Will your current grid connection support the additional load? Grid capacity constraints are already delaying projects across Ireland and the UK.

The businesses that fare best during energy disruptions aren't necessarily the ones with the biggest generators. They're the ones that built clarity around their demand, tested their assumptions, and prepared before the grid made the decision for them.

Citation capsule: The Kelly Review of the March 2025 Heathrow blackout found that transformers dating from 1968 failed despite moisture being detected in a high-voltage bushing in July 2018, and that nearly all emergency power sources would have been depleted before main supply was restored (Kelly Review, 2025).

Energy security is now a board-level decision

Energy security has moved from a background assumption to a board-level risk. The Heathrow blackout, Spain's grid failure, and Storm Eowyn all demonstrated that electricity supply isn't guaranteed — even in wealthy, well-connected economies.

The data confirms this trend. Outages are affecting three-quarters of businesses. Prices are climbing. Grid infrastructure is ageing. Demand is rising faster than networks can adapt. And the organisations electrifying to meet net-zero commitments are adding load to systems that are already under strain.

But this isn't a counsel of despair. The businesses that manage this risk well share a common trait: they know their demand. They've mapped their consumption, tested their backup systems, and built flexibility into their operations. They treat energy with the same strategic attention they give to cash flow and cybersecurity.

The first step isn't expensive. It's informational. Understand what your buildings draw from the grid today — and plan for what happens when the grid can't deliver it.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is energy security different from energy efficiency?

Yes. Energy efficiency is about reducing consumption per unit of output. Energy security is about ensuring your operations can continue when supply is disrupted, prices spike, or grid reliability falters. Efficiency supports security — lower demand means less exposure — but they're distinct disciplines. With 74% of businesses experiencing outages in 2025 (JD Power, 2025), security deserves its own strategic focus.

How exposed is Ireland to energy supply disruption?

Ireland's net electricity imports reached 14.6% of total demand in 2025, up from 11.7% the year before, and the country set an all-island peak demand record of 7,497 MW in January 2025 (EirGrid/Green Collective, 2025). Rising import dependency and record demand mean the system has less margin for error during extreme events.

What did the Heathrow blackout reveal about energy risk?

The Kelly Review found that 57-year-old transformers failed after warning signs were documented but ignored for seven years. Emergency backup power would have run out before mains supply was restored. It demonstrated that infrastructure age, deferred maintenance, and untested backup systems create compounding risks (Kelly Review, 2025).

Are energy prices expected to keep rising?

Signs point that way. Average commercial electricity prices rose 6.7% per kWh in 2025 (JD Power, 2025), and 92% of PwC survey respondents expect energy price volatility to increase their costs within 12 months (PwC UK Energy Survey, 2025). EU network costs are forecast to rise 20-40% by 2030 (ACER, 2024).

Where should a business start with energy security?

Start with demand visibility. Understand how your buildings use electricity, when peaks occur, and where waste exists. Then audit your backup systems under realistic conditions, review your supply contracts, and model the impact of any planned electrification. Demand-side insight is the foundation — everything else builds on it.

Why real efficiency starts with demand, not supply

Most organisations still focus on supply: how much energy comes in, what renewables are added, or which generation technologies are installed. Yet few truly understand how much energy is really needed. Without knowing how energy is used or how much is being wasted, there’s no foundation for real efficiency or credible progress.

The unseen half of performance

It starts small. Someone’s too cold, so facilities tweak a setting. Someone else feels a draft, so a louvre gets adjusted. Then a floor is reconfigured, and suddenly comfort complaints are cropping up far too often. The system drifts from its original setup. Energy use climbs, comfort falls, and no one knows why.

If you don’t have good data on how systems are performing, you can’t tell what’s efficient and what’s being wasted. It’s like managing a manufacturing business, buying raw materials without understanding how much material is actually needed to manufacture your products, and without any idea of the impact that waste has on the cost of producing these products.

Designing for the past

This lack of insight doesn’t just cause day-to-day waste. It also affects long-term decisions. When it’s time to replace equipment, new systems are often sized using old data. Many are 50 to 100 percent too big, and when they’re replaced “like for like,” that waste is built in for years to come.

The result is easy to see — higher costs, lower performance, and missed opportunities to improve.

Turning demand into intelligence

Efficiency starts with understanding demand. When you know how energy is used and where it’s wasted, you can make better choices. You can tune systems, target upgrades, and invest based on facts instead of assumptions.

Real progress doesn’t come from adding more supply. It begins with recognising what’s already happening — and using that insight to maintain control.