The financial costs of the energy suppliers as a result of the delay in the statements by the state amount, according to estimates, to around 60 million lei, respectively 17 lei/MWh, according to the representatives of the Romanian Energy Suppliers Association AFEER.
“We made an estimate of the financial costs, interest at the bank, to support the settlement delay: somewhere around 60 million lei. That means somewhere around 17 lei/MWh, plus/minus. Because there are suppliers who negotiated with the bank better , others negotiated worse,” AFEER representatives declared on Monday, according to Agerpres.
They indicated that, in the negotiation with the bank, they encounter two big problems, one of them being the existence of the settlement ceiling, which was initially 1,300 lei and later it was 900 lei.
“The idea of having a settlement ceiling puts us in a disadvantaged position in negotiations with the bank. When the bank does a credit assessment for the company there is a big question mark that the amount will be settled and then we are in a more disadvantaged position , which means higher financial costs,” explained the representatives of the suppliers.
The second problem, they added, is GEO 90/2023 which introduced the deadline for the available settlement amounts, “which, in addition to stressing us that it might not be done after 9 months, but after years, it spoils our waters with the bank even worse, because that term gives a part of risk”.
“We are in an even more disadvantaged position compared to the banks, and loan costs are increasing and the volume we can access is decreasing,” the members of the Association pointed out.
According to them, according to the calculations, “made grosso modo”, regarding the receipts to the Energy Transition Fund, they have decreased significantly compared to last year, those from charging producers will reach from about one billion per month to 500-600 million lei , and those from charging traders from 400 million per month to almost zero.
Regarding the new product announced by the Minister of Energy, the factoring one, the AFEER representatives indicated that the problem with it would not be the cost, but the risk, which is assumed exclusively by the suppliers in that tripartite relationship, in the sense that, after the end of the grace period, the state does not want to assume responsibility for non-payment within the respective term of the amounts settled by the bank before.
“The risk still remains with the supplier, because it is not known which bank will return against him after the grace period. The only advantage of the supplier would be that he can ensure a timely cash flow, but with the risk that this access to money over 150 days, after which he is the one who is damaged in the relationship with the bank. Or, these are the financial costs, plus the additional risk of not collecting the money is high. The bank takes advantage of this and in the negotiation process there are very few instruments of to come up with counter-arguments to the bank’s position. It’s ok from the perspective of access to money in a timely manner to be able to continue the activity, but the guarantee of recovering the money from settlements is minimal,” the suppliers explained.