The energy market is subject to geopolitical factors and this is the main element of volatility, and to help the market and reduce exposure to geopolitical factors we need liquidity, said the executive director of the Federation of Energy Utility Companies Associations (ACUE), Daniela Dărăban.

“I welcome the exit from the cap for non-household gas consumption. The energy market is subject to geopolitical factors and this is the main element of volatility. Maintaining the managed price mechanism is a way to keep the price low for the next cold season. What the household consumer needs to know: to treat this period as one in which to analyze all the offers in the market and to ensure that he has the right offer for his consumption, especially for the next cold season. For non-households, the cap was 0.37. He has been billed under this cap in the last two years. At the moment there are offers in the market and under this cap, but it is a situation in which non-households must also be careful what they sign, to look for offers. To help the electricity market, to reduce exposure to geopolitical, we need liquidity and we must understand how this market works. We must get out of the rut in which trading is not a useful activity. The liquidity of a market is given mainly by traders, then of market makers and suppliers. We cannot create a negative pattern on everything that trading means. It is an absolutely necessary role”, said Dărăban, according to Agerpres.

Regarding the exit from the capped price, on July 1, 2025, the head of ACUE mentioned that this was a very small one and meant a decision validated only politically, not economically.

“The price was very low, a decision validated only politically, not economically, so the price was set at the level of 2018. A political desideratum that was economically supported. We have been out of the electricity capping scheme for a year. For such an underdeveloped market, with low liquidity and many changes, the final price is ok, it reflects the reality of the market. Given that VAT did not decrease, but increased, right at the moment it was exited from the scheme, a low VAT would have helped a lot in that context. The greatest pressure is on this historical debt, which is circulating as an inappropriate excuse between state institutions. There are nine billion lei counted at ANRE, of which payments were made at the level of 2025, on that legislative provision. When that law was passed, a very high financial pressure was taken into account on suppliers and the possibility of an advance payment of 40% of the total value of the requests was given deposited at the settlement. What advance are we talking about, when the scheme was closed? We are in debt of six billion, because, unfortunately, although at the beginning of the scheme we had a procedure for publishing the status, the last communication is from the first week of December 2025, for the last week of November 2025, and which talks about a confirmation of 2 million lei. Since then, nothing has happened. It is a blockage”, warned Daniela Dărăban.

According to the cited source, at the moment there is a need for at least a doubling of investments in distribution.

“For PR5 (regulation period, ed.) on the distribution side, we have assumed 3.8 billion investments, with 1.1 billion European funds. From our point of view and from all the independent studies carried out, if we do the modeling with the objectives assumed through the PNIESC (Integrated National Plan for Energy and Climate Change, ed.), we need at least a doubling of investments in distribution. We need to appeal to the private sector to bring this money. For the private sector to make these investments available, which are also risk-bearing, the environment must be attractive. I noticed how the profitability part is presented – 6.94% on the investment side, plus 1.5% for new investments, plus 0.5. It is not a simple addition. The new investment part is strictly for new investments, the performance part is a bonus-malus, with plus and minus, difficult to anticipate whether you will receive it or not. The 0.5% part for European funds is for the operator’s 20% co-financing and, surprisingly, for the money contracted by the distribution operators from the Modernization Fund, worth 1.1 billion, no payments are made. There are delays of over 300 days compared to the 50-day deadline. No payments are made from the Modernization Fund, the excuse being that we do not have the administrative capacity and there is no one to evaluate the files”, she said.

This proposed three solutions regarding the doubling of investments: the binomial tariff – which changes the current way of reporting only on volume, also involving the way you interact with the network; the possibility of aggregated purchase of energy for technological consumption and technological self-consumption; the removal of socialized costs from primary legislation.