Pedro Amaral Jorge: Trump's decision "will favor Europe in attracting investment" for renewables

There are risks, but there are also opportunities to accelerate Europe’s energy transition. If the Trump administration “abandons” Europe militarily, European budgets will spend more on defense “to the detriment of the energy and digital transition, social benefits, and there may even be “less mental space for member states to address” the issue of energy. This is a risk that is on the table, but we “must let events unfold over the next six months.” These are the risks identified by Pedro Amaral Jorge, executive president of the Portuguese Renewable Energy Association (APREN), this week’s guest on “Conversations with CEOs.”

How do you manage to have time for so many things?

We have to use the strategy from the book “The 5 AM Club” [by Robin Sharma]. My day starts at 5:30. Obviously, I always have more activities than I can complete, but that is inherent to the job. I try to coordinate them as best I can, never failing to pay attention because they all require a lot.

And what led you to become interested in the area of ​​renewable energy?

I started working in energy while I was still at the Instituto Superior Técnico, in Research and Development, interestingly enough with the current Minister of the Environment, who was my professor – at the time, my research supervisor. And I think it was in my third year that I worked on fluidized bed solar collectors, a technology for transferring thermal energy from the sun to water.

And are you enjoying this experience of associativism?

I'm loving it. It's not just about associativism. It's about the challenge of finding common denominators to optimize value on critical topics. And then there's a huge technical component that forces me to study the evolution of directives and European regulations and their applicability to Portugal on a daily basis. Now we will have to study the simplification of these rules, since the European Commission has made this commitment. Will it not cover this area? It will. But when we put European Commission and simplification in the same sentence, we have to be patient, because the degree of simplification is not what we expect immediately.

Not very optimistic?

I am, because we have no alternative. Simplification processes always take time. But with a geopolitical context that has accelerated with the election of President Trump, the European Commission and the Member States must reflect and [define] very quickly what they want to do in terms of their autonomy and sovereignty, in terms of politics, energy and digital transition. The Draghi report that gave rise to the Compass [EU Competitiveness Compass], for increasing the competitiveness and security of the European Union, has concrete measures.

What would you identify as the measure that most urgently needs to be simplified?

For example, simplifying licensing processes, creating electronic platforms to dematerialize and digitize these processes, adapting regulations to define futures markets in Portugal and thus bringing futures electricity contracts to consumers and producers. And adopting fiscal and economic measures that encourage the electrification of consumption towards competitiveness and reducing emissions. And once and for all, we must understand that energy sovereignty – whether European, Portuguese or Iberian – is impossible in any other way than through renewable energy.

Is Portugal still a leader in renewable energy?

Portugal is in the Top 4 of European countries. In 2024, we will have incorporated 80.4% of renewable energy in electricity production and 71% in consumption. In other words, we are well on track to reach the ambitious targets of incorporating 85% of renewable energy in electricity production by 2030.

Did we arrive earlier?

I hope so, but I am being cautious. I am convinced that this geopolitical agenda will benefit Europe in attracting investment to accelerate the energy transition. But if we were to abandon military support here, this could completely change the context in which we find ourselves. This agreement with Ukraine will not benefit Europe. It will benefit Russia. And state budgets may be forced to invest the aforementioned 2.5% to 5% in defense, to the detriment of the energy and digital transition.

If more money is needed for defense, can there be less for the energy transition?

…And there may even be less mental space for member states to address this issue. And it is not just for the energy transition, it is also for all social benefits. This risk is on the table. We have to let events unfold over the next six months and see if all these executive orders and attempts at agreements – Gaza, Ukraine, Greenland, Canada, changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America – are a The Apprentice 2 [film about Donald Trump] or if it is an intention of the nation, not just of the President, but also of Congress and the Senate.

And what other impacts do you anticipate?

One advantage may be related to investments under the Inflation Reduction Act for the US. It is not because the US administration decides that it will not support wind, solar or even hydroelectric power that funds and investors will stop investing. I do not think there will be a total reversal of the energy transition. Especially because many things depend on the States. I do not see California and Texas, the State that has installed the most solar and wind power, backing down. Now, it will cause impasses as to whether or not to invest. And Europe has an opportunity here, by accelerating the simplification of the processes for attracting investment. And if we have a more stable and predictable context in Europe, the financing available in the US can be channelled to the European space and we can accelerate the energy transition. What we have created is a context in which investors will be afraid of whether or not we will have a military problem in the European space. It is more a problem of uncertainty than of financial resources.

How is it that, with so much renewable energy, the price of electricity doesn't go down?

The only variable that renewables can influence is the [price] of production. And this has been falling over the last ten years. What we need to do in Portugal is allow consumers to contract electricity on a fixed-term basis only based on renewables. This helps electricity consumers to have predictability and to capture the benefits of renewables, and it helps investors in renewable projects to aggregate a critical mass of consumption to finance projects.

Is the licensing problem solved with the Mission Framework?

It is not resolved. The Mission Structure has started working. But this is a process that requires alignment between the APA, the DGEG (Directorate-General for Energy and Geology), the CCDR, the municipalities, the ICNF... I do not disagree with having this whole process, because it allows us to safeguard wildlife and environmental values. But we have to do it in a more pragmatic way and with a common denominator between the different regulations and laws that govern it. What effect could the new restrictions that the Minister of Agriculture apparently wants to introduce have on the installation of solar panels on land suitable for agriculture? The Minister needs to be told that these are not mutually exclusive. If there are indeed crops that are completely incompatible with living in harmony with wind or photovoltaic power plants, we obviously have to give priority to agricultural production for human consumption. That is out of the question. But today agrivoltaics already exists, as in Badajoz, for example. In addition to livestock farming and beekeeping, some species require more shade. I understand that the Minister of Agriculture wants to maximize the availability of land for agricultural production. But I can manage to combine the two, and today there are many examples of this all over the world.

Let's talk about other energy alternatives. Are renewable energies capable of meeting all demand or do we need biofuels?

At APREN, we believe in all renewable energy sources, but our focus is on electricity production. For example, biogas plays a key role in supplying part of gas consumption, avoiding the import of natural gas. However, in long-term projections, as the electrification of consumption increases, this gas, despite having a closed CO2 cycle, will continue to pollute and we will reduce its use. And this is not an environmental issue, it is an economic issue. The scalability of electricity will be such that it will be cheaper than any other energy source.

And hydrogen, why is it a controversial project?

Hydrogen will be an energy vector to obtain other forms of energy. The problem with hydrogen is that it has to be scaled up, so that costs can be kept low. The question is whether Europe will do it or China. When we look at the numbers, it seems that China will get there first.

And should we invest in this area?

Of course, but with all due caution. The technologies have been proven for decades. Combining renewable electricity, electrolysers, special water treatment... This combination is new. This learning will happen. We will be using hydrogen, but I don't know if in three or five years.

Finally nuclear energy. Some argue that it is the cleanest of all.

Nuclear energy has three problems. The first is social acceptance. If today I have difficulty installing a wind turbine or a hectare of photovoltaic power plant, I would like to know which municipality or population will accept it, even if they are smaller reactors. Furthermore, these reactors are further behind in technological development than, for example, hydrogen. And, when the technology becomes commercially usable, whether in 10 or 15 years, I will have filled the market gap with electricity and the sources will be renewable. When nuclear power arrives, it will only be possible to do so with state subsidies. There is no advantage.

What worries you in 2025?

The outcome of the Ukraine war and the Trump administration's behavior toward it. And if this intention to invade Greenland is nothing more than propaganda to satisfy MAGA voters, I worry that we will return to the 19th century model of starting to occupy space. This is the greatest instability we have had since World War II in the European space.