Franck Neel, president of the Energy Employers’ Federation (FPE)
The optimal scenario for the Romanian gas market is a complete and predictable re-liberalization from April 2027, without new transitional distortions, says Franck Neel, president of the Energy Employers’ Federation (FPE). In an interview with Energynomics, he warns that regulatory uncertainty erodes liquidity, delays investments—including offshore investments—and ultimately affects the price paid by consumers. The FPE’s message: the market does not have a structural problem, but rather one of stability and credibility of the rules.
What would be the best scenario for re-liberalizing the gas market, in your view? What happens if the market gets liberalized in stages, by 2027? Who will support the costs?
From FPE’s standpoint, the optimal scenario is full and predictable liberalization starting April 2027, without additional transitional distortions. Also, the current regulation means that industries subsidize the household market which creates more pressure on inflation.
The Romanian gas market has already demonstrated that it can function competitively when regulatory signals are clear. The current liquidity issues are not structural; they are the consequence of successive emergency interventions. Therefore, the priority is regulatory predictability, not further market engineering.
If liberalization is postponed in stages after 2027 we are sure that uncertainty will persist, while forward trading will remain depressed. Also, the investment decisions-especially in the offshore segment -may be delayed. And the cost of risk will ultimately be embedded in consumer prices.
Experience shows that a partial liberalization does not spread costs evenly. In practice, producers face constrained commercialization,suppliers carry regulatory risk and consumers eventually bear the hidden costs through higher risk premiums and reduced competition.
We think that a clean, credible exit from emergency measures remains the least costly path for the system as a whole.
How can we have a better liquidity, representation and transparency in the gas market? What new instruments/ market principles/ actors must be used or introduced?
FPE’s position is that liquidity will recover primarily through regulatory stability, not through forced mechanisms. However, several market-based improvements can support depth and transparency.
The key priorities include regulatory certainty, with the clear confirmation that GEO no. 6/2025 measures will not be prolonged. And, as we always said, we ned a stable fiscal and market rules over the medium term.
When it comes to the development of financial instruments, the Romanian gas market would benefit from introducing more standardized forward and futures products, financially settled derivatives and longer-dated hedging instruments. These tools allow participants to manage risk and naturally deepen liquidity. When we talk about market-making frameworks we look at market-based ones, not mandatory ones. Voluntary market-making schemes, if properly incentivized and not coercive, could support the bid-ask depth, especially on forward maturities.
We would also need a broader participation to the market. Liquidity improves when more actors can participate efficiently – I talk here about regional traders, financial intermediaries, aggregators and large industrial consumers.
Also transparency and hub integration are very important. Further alignment with regional hubs and improved cross-border capacity utilization will strengthen price signals organically.
Overall, the essential point is that liquidity cannot be engineered sustainably through volume obligations – it must emerge from confidence in the rules.
Could a gas release program help solve the market problem? How did it function in the past?
FPE’s consistent view is that a GRP is neither necessary nor appropriate in the current Romanian context.
Historically, gas release programs in some European markets were used as temporary competition remedies in highly concentrated markets-typically during market opening phases decades ago. They forced incumbent producers to auction volumes to stimulate entry.
However, the Romanian situation today is fundamentally different: the market is already structurally competitive, liquidity constraints are policy-induced and new offshore volumes are expected to enter the market.
In the current design proposals, a GRP would force producers to offer volumes on centralized markets, start auctions from legislatively imposed discounts and interfere with free price formation.
Therefore, instead of solving the root cause, a GRP would risk introducing new distortions and legal inconsistencies, including potential conflicts with Offshore Law provisions.
What should Romania change in the taxation regime in order to attract more FDI and release pressure from investors?
Romania’s upstream sector remains attractive geologically but fiscally and regulatorily volatile, which raises the cost of capital.
From FPE’s perspective, the priorities are clear, we need predictability and stability, and the authorities must avoid frequent changes to the fiscal framework and also must ensure long-term visibility for offshore and onshore projects.
There is also a need in the market for rationalization of supplementary taxation. The cumulative burden from windfall taxes, supplementary trading taxes and overlapping fiscal layers have reduced the competitiveness of Romanian projects relative to the region.
Investors also need a more competitive offshore regime. The Offshore Law improvements were an important step, but investors still look for a stable application, clarity on deductibility rules and assurance against ad-hoc future levies.
Not least, encouraging reinvestment means also fiscal incentives for reinvestment in mature fields and new technologies (e.g., carbon management, digitalization) that would help sustain production.
In short, capital flows will come where rules are stable and returns are predictable.
Why is important to have a new Round XI tender for new perimeters by ANRM-PSG? What is the degree of depletion of former gas perimeters on the continental shelf? How about new offshore perimeters?
Launching the Round XI tendering process is essential for Romania’s long-term energy security.
At the same time, when we talk about mature perimeter depletion, Romania’s legacy onshore fields and parts of the continental shelf are in natural decline, in line with basin maturity. Therefore, without continuous exploration the domestic production will gradually decrease, import dependence will rise and price volatility exposure will increase, too.
There is a strategic role of new offshore perimeters. While flagship offshore projects will materially support supply in the coming years, they are not sufficient alone. Exploration must continue to identify additional resources, maintain production plateaus and extend Romania’s role as a regional supplier.
Therefore, Round XI would send a strong signal that Romania remains open for upstream investments.
Romania made changes to natural gas licence regulations. On 1 January 2026, Romania enforced ANRE Order 83/2025, which amends the process for granting authorisations and licences in the natural gas sector and repeals the previous 2020 Regulation. How will the removal of authorisation for liquefied natural gas (LNG) and hydrogen installations help the market?
The simplification introduced by ANRE Order 83/2025 is viewed positively by FPE. Removing redundant authorisation layers for LNG and hydrogen installations can reduce administrative burden, shorten project timelines, lower entry barriers for new technologies and improve alignment with EU decarbonization pathways.
For emerging sectors like hydrogen, speed and clarity of permitting are critical. Over-regulation at early market stages can delay investment and innovation. That said, simplification must be accompanied by clear technical standards, safety oversight and grid integration rules.
If implemented coherently, the measure can support diversification and system flexibility.
What more needs Romania to do in order to help the development of a real biofuel market?
Romania has strong agricultural potential, but the biofuel market remains underdeveloped due to
policy fragmentation and investment uncertainty. From FPE’s perspective, several steps are necessary. A first step would be ensuring stable and ambitious blending mandates. Investors require long-term visibility on biofuel demand. Frequent adjustments to mandates discourage capital deployment. Also, we need to have support for advanced biofuels. The policy should differentiate and incentivize advanced biofuels, waste-based feedstocks and next-generation technologies.
Also, when it comes to infrastructure and logistics, the development of collection systems, storage and transport infrastructure are essential for scaling production.
Financing the projects is also very important, so we need to have bankable support schemes
Where support is used, it should be transparent, market-based and compliant with EU state aid rules.
Last but not least, investors in this segment need regulatory coherence. Alignment between energy, agriculture, and environmental policies remains critical.
My final message is that the Romanian gas and fuels markets do not suffer from structural failure but from regulatory volatility. The most effective intervention today is not additional market engineering but credible, stable, and predictable policy signals that allow competitive forces and investment to function normally.
