Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
View all Glossary Terms Related Content
CASE STUDY
“Although cost was an important factor, our relationship with LexisNexis, their responsiveness, flexibility, and the integration available with other products were key factors.”
Irwin MitchellAccess all documents on NIRO
NIRO meaning
Published by a LexisNexis Energy expert
What does NIRO mean?
In legal practice, NIRO refers to the Northern Ireland Renewables Obligation: the statutory scheme requiring licensed electricity suppliers in Northern Ireland to supply a specified proportion of electricity from renewable sources, evidenced by Renewables Obligation Certificates (NIROCs/ROCs). It is established under the Energy (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 and the Renewables Obligation Order (Northern Ireland) 2009 (as amended), and is administered by Ofgem on behalf of the Department for the Economy (Northern Ireland) and the Utility Regulator.
Key features include generator accreditation, technology banding (NIROCs issued per MWh), annual supplier compliance by presenting ROCs or paying the buy‑out price, and redistribution of the buy‑out fund to compliant suppliers. ROCs are tradable and are mutually recognised with the Great Britain schemes (the RO for England & Wales and the ROS for Scotland).
The NIRO closed to new accreditations on 31 March 2017, with limited grace periods (notably for onshore wind). Existing accredited stations continue to receive NIROCs for their support lifetime, and suppliers remain obligated to 2037.
The term is used in project finance, PPAs, due diligence and change‑in‑law analysis for Northern Ireland renewable energy assets. It does not apply in Ireland (Republic of Ireland), which operates separate support schemes (e.g., REFIT/RESS).
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.
View the related News about NIRO
NEWS
EU law weekly: CJEU annuls Commission refusal citing EMA conflicts; FuelEU Maritime consultations; ECHA poison centre checks; AI Act FRIA analysis; funding updates and new practice notes (4 April 2024)
In this issue: Energy Environment Life sciences TMT LexTalk®EU Law: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Trackers New and updated content Energy Consultations open on FuelEU Maritime verification and monitoring requirements The European Commission has opened three consultations on the FuelEU Maritime Regulation, intended to advance the decarbonisation of the shipping sector. The first examines the technical specifications for verification activities that will apply to shipping companies’ emissions. The second presents a template for the plans that companies must submit, explaining how their ships will be verified and how their emissions will be monitored. The third details the methods and criteria for accrediting ‘verifiers’ who will oversee compliance with the monitoring plan and the verification of FuelEU reports and documentation. The deadline for responses is 24 April 2024. See: LNB News 28/03/2024 80. Environment ECHA announces project to check poison centre notifications ECHA has indicated that its Enforcement Forum has...
04 April
Read More 
NEWS
CJEU annuls Commission refusal over EMA conflicts; UK engineering biology call for evidence; EFPIA JCA guidance; HRA Investigator-Initiated Study template; CMA private healthcare compliance—Life Sciences funding and trackers
In this issue: Regulatory framework for medicinal products Commercialisation Research and development Competition in life sciences LexTalk®Life Sciences: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Regulatory framework for medicinal products Court of Justice finds that scientific experts’ conflicts of interest meant refusal of marketing authorisation was unlawful On 14 March 2024, the Court of Justice handed down its ruling on the appeal brought by Debrégeas et associés Pharma SAS (D&A Pharma) against the earlier judgment of the General Court of the EU (the General Court), which had dismissed its action challenging the European Commission’s refusal to grant a conditional marketing authorisation (CMA) for D&A Pharma’s medicine, Hopveus (sodium oxybate). The Court of Justice set aside the General Court’s judgment and quashed the Commission’s decision, concluding that some of the scientific experts engaged by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to advise on...
04 April
Read More 
