This is the transcript of the message delivered by Carmen Neagu, President of the Supervisory Board at Transelectrica, during the Energy Strategy Summit, held on June 4 at the Cantacuzino Palace in Bușteni.

After so many very interesting things that were said, I think that very few new ones can be raised by me. I begin by congratulating Energynomics for this initiative. From the beginning I was very pleased that we are taken away from Bucharest, get out all from our offices to focus, to stay a day to get something done between specialists and authorities. If not us, who then? In the first part I was glad that Mihnea Constantinescu spoke, because he is the originator of some tools which opens the way to policy makers, like that Prime Minister’s advisory group.

A first consultation was held up, it up to us to bring ideas to the table and be active. Coalition for Romania is again an instrument in which the business community may intervene. The Energy Task Force has also released some very interesting themes for public consultation. We have to operate in these areas to make things really moving in the right direction.

Turning to today’s summit, there was earlier a discussion on vision, but above all I would start with defining energy. Speaking of energy strategy, everyone connects me to Transelectrica, especially since we take the news headlines, willingly or unwillingly, but my background is in thermal energy and I have to join the only voice that spoke warmly about the heat today, because it is extraordinarily important. The energy balance of a country includes more than 80% heat. To speak of an energy strategy and focus only to resolve 50% of the energy balance of a country is a big mistake.

One of the conclusions should be placing the thermal area as an essential part of the energy strategy, to have a unified whole. About discussion on vision, we keep talking about Romania’s possibility of becoming an energy hub. The definition of this hub is not clearly made: it is a resource hub, an energy trading hub? From this perspective, Transelectrica made last year perhaps the most important project of the past few years, the market coupling. It is a very important step and the results are remarkable. This is a first step towards European Energy Union, where before of anything we showed that we are ready. We must do these things more often in European policies.

Toni Volpe said earlier that the vision of energy hub should be made in the context of the European Energy Union, it cannot be otherwise, but we must be more proactive, we should be the ones who generate directions in partnerships. We have to think in geopolitical terms which are the best approach, the best partnership. In terms of geopolitical interests, cooperation with Poland is particularly interesting because we share the same type of interest and approach at the edge of Europe. But the vision in an energy strategy must not be detached from Romania’s economic vision.

The problem is not that we have no strategy, or that we do not have predictability. In reality we are very predictable, and we have the same objectives since I graduated from the university. Tarniţa and Cernavodă did not happen, this is the problem; we have strategies, what we are missing are the actions and redoing the substantiation studies. The strategies were based on companies strategies, no studies were done to involve analysis of consumer insights, resource analysis, and technology analysis. An energy strategy should include a methodology for developing these studies and update them.

At the moment, in the energy legislation there is only one updating model established for a type of study. It is the study of network development, made every two years by Transelectrica and approved by ANRE, but this study is done under auspices of uncertainty about generation, size, the where and how much will be distributed, how many big capacities, what kind of resources.

For example France makes every two years updating studies of nuclear technology. Groups of researchers do such systems of renewing substantiation studies of all strategic decisions and everything that happens in the world in recent years shows just how much uncertainty there is and how many things change. Having a framework through which such analysis may be updated at any time, we will no longer be able to say that we have changed the law without substantiation.

There was talk about the installed capacity of 20,000 MW, about lower consumption; it is important in determining the premises in which we define our analysis. We must recognize that these 20,000 MW are on paper. If tomorrow a command will be given to start 14,000 MW, we will have a big problem. The strategy should clearly determine from where we start, what are perspectives are and must have a clear implementation program with transitional solutions, because if we can do all the investments, these will last very long, and until then what are we doing? So there must be a clear implementation program, transitional solutions and financing solutions, where we cannot confine ourselves to expect the arrival of strategic investors.

We must have financing solutions in various strategies and these solutions must be clearly substantiated with tariff policies, with the prospects for maintaining price affordability and the outlook for fuel prices. At the moment there is a very interesting precedent which has not been discussed. The European Commission has approved Contracts for Difference for Hikley Point nuclear program, in the United Kingdom. If you had the curiosity to look on the mathematics behind it, it is remarkable.

I am convinced that there are enough specialists able to make such a simulation, but this means grounding a funding program and financial resources for an energy project. All these should be made public; we must address a less populist manner concerning the tariff evolution.

No matter what strategy we do, it will not lower the tariffs. This needs to be recognized by us as specialists. This is the evolution of fuel prices, of gaps between resources, of way of coverage, of necessary investment, which should have a margin. Any tariff development can only ensure affordability in perspective, in the context of global economic developments, but it cannot be said that what we do will lower the price. And this we have to recognize and to say it more often.

Here were also mentioned generation uncertainty, increasing intermittent generation, reverse flow, consumers already able to deliver energy in the system, not only to consume. There were mentioned elements of energy efficiency, urban mobility, digitalization, cyber security. From the point of view of safety of the national energy system, the issue of cybersecurity is essential.

If you have questions, I am right here.