In general, the obvious is the knowledge we all share. It is the common understanding that we all take for granted – it goes without saying. „It’s obvious!” Yet there are moments when what seems obvious divides us. We stand in our silos, secured behind our own certainties, each side speaking the language of what is self-evident to them.
On October 8th, Energynomics and Europe Energy Traders organized a working table with the participation of 20 of the world’s largest energy trading companies, all of them actively interested in the Romanian market. The discussion also brought together representatives of the Romanian Parliament, the national energy regulator (ANRE), the Competition Council, and the Ministry of Energy — all contributing to an open, sometimes delicate, but always constructive dialogue. It was, in essence, a meeting point for different kinds of “obvious”.
More than one vantage point
First of all, there were “comforting obviouses” — sentences re-stating Romania’s adherence to European rules. “Of course, something that I need to state from the beginning is the fact that we really believe that the path to a sustainable, resilient and economically viable energy system must be built on the foundations of the markets.” And “it is clear that we need more liquidity, more predictability, and a better implementation of European legislation.”
Then came the formulations qualified by a final “but”: “I do believe that, yes, we need a functional market — it’s an obvious fact actually. But, without end users we cannot have a full market.” This captures a truth about public authority: the electricity and gas markets are instruments for advancing other, more pressing priorities.
During the conversation, security of supply, decarbonization, and price affordability were presented as Romania’s three strategic goals. “For us now the main objective is price affordability, and we need to take measures to reduce the price of electricity […] These are measures that maybe traders don’t like, but they are important to reduce volatility on the day-ahead market.” In the short-term, protecting vulnerable consumers and maintaining industrial competitiveness are paramount; the long-term objective is market liberalization and trust rebuilding.
Interconnection capacity and regional integration are seen as critical for turning Romania into an energy hub; increasing cross-border capacity — including on the Hungary–Austria corridor — is a key goal. “We still have points where electricity theoretically can flow, but practically there is not enough capacity.”
For their part, the traders insisted that free markets and stable, predictable regulation are essential to attract investment. Repeatedly, speakers affirmed that trading is an essential element of the energy system, contributing to the very goals authorities invoke — affordability, liquidity, security of supply, and investor confidence. “We cannot be either a hub or a regional player without significant presence of traders on the market,” one participant stressed.
What I do not understand is magic. Or even black magic
Asked in good faith, a common question in public debate is: “What do we need traders for — why an intermediary between the power producer and the consumer?” It is a perfectly justifiable question. But it also reflects a misunderstanding of how the energy system actually works: the multitude of players involved and the complexity of their interactions. Electricity is not a simple good that moves from producer to consumer like a loaf of bread. It is a dynamic flow within a tightly balanced network, where supply and demand must be matched every second, across geographies, contracts, and regulatory frameworks.
A proper answer requires explanations across all these layers. While the general public cannot be expected to master that complexity, the level of understanding must rise among decision-makers and opinion shapers. If not, public conversation risks being captured by those who oversimplify — or by those who weaponize confusion and fear.
What traders actually do – and why that matters
Throughout the dialogue, trading emerged not as a peripheral activity, but as a structural condition for a functioning energy market. The argument is straightforward and empirical: liquidity equals confidence. “When the 98% tax on trading entered into force, liquidity dropped to zero overnight.” Only when that measure was relaxed did activity begin to recover.
The simplest transactions are, in fact, public goods — they make the market visible, comparable, and predictable. Trading activity produces price discovery — the ability to know, at any given moment, what energy really costs and why. Without that flow of transactions, there is no reliable reference price, and the entire market — producers, suppliers, consumers, even policymakers — loses orientation. Traders “create liquidity, create competition, and put money in the market,” a trader said, warning that “without traders, producers can sell at any price.”
Another crucial role is stabilizing the system. Beyond pure financial intermediation, they connect producers and consumers through forward contracts and power purchase agreements, giving both sides certainty. “They are contributors to the security of supply,” one participant remarked, “because they are there to sell or buy what we need to buy or sell.” This is especially relevant to policymakers who equate energy security with national security. Free and liquid markets, “do not contradict security of supply — on the contrary, they attract investors and bring down prices in the long run”, another participant said.
Finally, trading serves as a bridge between national policy and European integration. Traders are the ones who make interconnection meaningful, transforming infrastructure into flows and flows into price references. “The market is the place where everything comes together. We just need to make sure that it works.” In short, Romania’s ambitions for affordable energy, industrial competitiveness, and regional leadership depend not only on pipelines and cables, but on trust, predictability, and the rule-based exchange — the terrain where trading proves its value.
A bridge between policy comfort and market reality
With all the differences of opinion and vocabulary around the table, the reality outside that room is far more demanding. Talking about prices in isolation — stripped of the physical, digital, and regulatory complexities that shape them — is detrimental for everyone. Markets are not abstractions; they are living systems where signals travel through cables, contracts, and rules. When public debate ignores that reality, the void is filled by those who shout louder: spectacular commentators, rigid official statements, or opportunists who trade fear and disinformation. None of them build trust. All of them go against progress and sustainable development.
What this meeting set in motion was, in fact, a promising common effort among stakeholders to make the market intelligible. Participants understood that protecting the market from noise and confusion requires cooperation, not confrontation. As one of the hosts, “we need to be able to explain why traders are essential.” To do so, all parties must share the same vocabulary and, to some extent, a similar mission: translating complexity into confidence.
If Romania is to remain a predictable and credible player within the European market, it must treat trading as a partner in governance, not a suspect under investigation. A transparent, rule-based market is not the opposite of state oversight; it is its most reliable ally. Without such a continuous, intelligent conversation between policy and practice, the risk of simple and wrong answers grows – and in energy, wrong answers tend to be rapidly followed by misfired and costly legal and regulatory decisions.
The bridge between policy comfort and market reality must therefore be crossed together, deliberately and often, until all sides discover that their “obvious” truths are not opposed, but complementary — parts of the same reality they call a market.
