Oana Mogoi, Sector Head Energy, ING Bank, Bucharest Branch
In a regional and local context where energy and the economy are rapidly changing their “rules of the game”, investment decisions are increasingly about resilience, flexibility and access to capital, not just about prices and returns. The EU’s slow recovery, geopolitical volatility, pressure on financing costs and new regulatory conditions intersect with domestic dynamics – from legislative adjustments to potential fiscal measures – that can directly influence investor appetite and project bankability. In this interview, we talk to Oana Mogoi, Sector Head Energy, ING Bank, Bucharest Branch, about what financing energy projects means in 2026, how to build “bankable” transactions and what companies that want to attract capital in an environment more complex than ever should consider.
Bogdan Tudorache
The energy market and the economy seem to have entered a new stage of complexity. From a financing perspective, what has changed the most?
I would say that three essential things have changed. First, uncertainty has become structural: we are no longer talking about just episodes of volatility, but a period in which alternative scenarios must be permanently integrated into financial modeling. Second, the cost of capital and bankability criteria have evolved: investors and banks are much more attentive to market, regulatory and execution risks. Third, the energy transition has accelerated, but not uniformly: this creates a mix of opportunities and constraints, especially in the area of networks, flexibility and the integration of renewables.
For a project, this translates into a simple requirement, to demonstrate resilience in a wide range of scenarios.
What are the external factors that put the most pressure on energy investments?
Externally, we see several “forces” that are propagating rapidly in models and in financing terms. One is geopolitics, with a direct impact on risk perception and investor premiums. The second is macro dynamics: inflation, interest rates, equipment costs and supply chains – all of which affect capex and feasibility. The third is the direction of European policies: targets, standards, support or compliance mechanisms, which can change the economics of projects.
When these factors combine, the message for financing is clear: projects must come with solid contractual structures, prudent estimates and a credible risk management strategy.
Domestically, what can change investment attractiveness “on the fly”? How have fiscal measures affected the market?
Domestically, the most important element is predictability. In energy, investments are capital-intensive and amortized over many years; any sudden change usually has an immediate effect on the cost of capital and investor appetite.
Fiscal measures – or even the discussion of them – matter if they are perceived as unpredictable, retroactive or difficult to model. In practice, this means that a project may become more difficult to finance if there are uncertainties regarding: net cash flows, the stability of the tax framework, the treatment of subsidies or regulated revenues.
I am not saying that fiscal adjustments cannot be necessary, but that the way they are implemented matters enormously: consultation, transition periods, clarity in implementation. In their absence, the perceived risk increases and is reflected in stricter financing conditions.
In a period of slow recovery and budgetary pressures, how can the state’s fiscal needs be balanced with the need for investment?
This is a key question, because energy needs long-term capital, and the state has multiple objectives. From an investment perspective, balance comes from stability and gradualism. If fiscal adjustments occur, they should be calibrated so that they do not compromise ongoing projects and maintain a predictable trajectory for future projects.
An investable market does not mean low taxes at any cost, but clear rules, consistently applied, and a framework that allows for realistic modeling of cash flows. In addition, mechanisms that reduce risk (for example, for certain types of projects) can attract private capital and reduce pressure on the public budget, precisely because they transfer part of the investment effort to the market.
What are the key elements for an energy project to be considered bankable?
Essentially, a bankable project has: (1) a robust revenue mechanism; (2) correctly contractually allocated risks; (3) credible execution; (4) access to infrastructure; (5) a financial structure compatible with volatility.
We look closely at key contracts (supply/feedstock, offtake/PPA, EPC, O&M), guarantees, timeline, cost reserves, grid connection and governance. Furthermore, in transition projects, ESG and compliance are not “optional”: they influence access to capital and financing conditions.
Where do you see the most bankable opportunities in Romania today?
Projects that deliver energy at low marginal cost and can demonstrate bankability remain attractive: renewables with appropriate contracting, grid upgrades, flexibility and storage. At the same time, interest in biofuels and industrial decarbonization projects, including CCUS, is growing where there is an economic logic and a clear revenue or support framework.
How do you manage the risk of external versus internal shocks in transactions?
External shocks are quickly reflected in financial conditions – costs, interest rates, terms. Internal shocks, especially fiscal ones, affect confidence and predictability. A well-prepared project integrates scenarios for both categories and builds appropriate reserves and contractual structures.
If you had to send a message to Energynomics readers about the next 12–24 months, what would it be?
I would say that we are entering a stage where those who combine ambition with discipline win. The opportunities in energy are real, but capital will go to projects that are clearly structured, well contracted and resilient to external and internal shocks.
And for Romania, the key is to transform the potential into bankable projects through infrastructure, predictability and collaboration between the public and private sectors. In such a framework, investments not only happen, but they happen faster and at a better cost – which, ultimately, is seen in competitiveness and in the price of energy for the economy.
The current context puts pressure on all components of the investment chain, but also offers significant opportunities for well-structured projects. Access to capital is not a barrier in itself; the barrier is the lack of predictability or commercial clarity. Romania has the chance to accelerate strategic investments if it manages to create a stable, transparent and results-oriented climate – a climate in which both investors and financiers can operate with confidence.
