This is the transcript of the message delivered by Mihnea Constantinescu, Ambassador for Energy Security at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, during the 2016 Energy Strategy Summit, held on May 31 at Snagov Palace. For a sum-up of the main ideas, check our previous material: 27 essential ideas after Energy Strategy Summit 2016.

It is a great pleasure to accompany Minister of Energy at the debates on the energy strategy! I think you are the fourth minister that I accompany. I have a feeling of a… bass guitar within this accompaniment – sometimes I have to translate the diplomatic language of the Energy ministers into the corporate language, so that to convey the messages that the minister of Energy intends to transmit. I am impressed, this time, that Mr. minister brought into attention a topic that, unfortunately, I have not heard a long time in such a context and, unfortunately I have not heard it not only at the governmental level at home, but neither in the relationship between Romania and its external partners. Namely, this is our participation in the technological advances, not only internally but also in Europe. I think it is a subject which we should treat more seriously, to begin with the opportunity given by this national energy strategy, a document which should open a long way for the interest the government should pay to the new technologies and to the Romania’s involvement in the national efforts for attracting new technologies in the energy sector.

It is also a great pleasure to be today near Ambassador Richard Morningstar, who, in the last decade, was for us, not only for Romania, but also for other countries in Central and Eastern Europe, a mentor and a visionary who helped us to cross the deck, so to speak, through various challenges that we had to overcome in regard to the situation of the energy infrastructure in this part of Europe, to the restructuring and reordering of the gas market. Ultimately, he is, in my opinion, the one who had and perhaps still holds the keys of the Southern corridor, keys which made it possible to truly diversify the gas supplies to Europe. I thank, on this occasion, Ambassador [Richard] Morningstar for all the support he gave us! In some way, Sir, I would like to take this opportunity of this 5 minutes of having an American in the same room to be courageous and I invite everyone to take advantage of his presence here to be courageous in your intervention and criticize the Government, the minister, and especially North Stream II. Now, I would like to go back to the objectives of our discussion today.

I remember the preceding discussion, within the same framework, on the energy strategy. Certainly, within a year, thanks to a persistence that deserve to be appreciated, from the ministry of Energy, remarkable progress in repositioning this energy strategy have been made. From the point of view of one who should be concerned more deeply what it should mean energy security in relation to the national security, let me say that the approach to the energy strategy anchored in the concept of security is the object is exactly at the time and is also an invitation to be much deeper at what cost national security. The costs for investment in the national security, are not only costs in defensive means required to increase the national security, but also by investing in energy security we actually have to understand that we have a duty to contribute in one way or another to strengthen the national security. I believe that when we think to the investment costs in the energy sector, we should also think of the costs beyond the tangible assets, we should also think of the costs involved by the asset which give competitiveness to the national energy sector. This means costs to establish a predictable and stable legislative framework. (I am glad that we have here with us the President of the Parliamentary Commission for Commerce and Industry who, throughout this period, ensured that such a legislative framework can move forward in a coherent way!) It also means the costs implied by what sometimes it is difficult to accept: costs for encouraging the companies to come up with investments in the national energy sector, to preserve their investments in the national energy sector, whether it is the fiscal framework, or the incentives correlated to the investments made and so on.

The third thing it would very much want this new national energy strategy to address is the issue of financing. have I said this thing in the past and unfortunately I do not think we really had a national debate on the types of financing necessary at this stage for the sustainability of the national energy sector. I mean the manner the state-owned companies meet their investment plans and to what extent they are capable to fulfill their investment plans based on creative approaches and not necessarily by adding new burdens on the final consumers. On the other hand, I think about how we are able to create public private partnerships in the energy sector. Without such partnerships, all the energy minister said here about attracting new technologies in the energy sector would not be possible. Why not stimulate international financial institutions to assume with more responsibility and with more openness their mission – especially the European investment banks – when they have to assess projects with strategic impact. Because, there is one thing to have commercial financing for commercial energy projects, and another one to take responsibility for strategic funding. The simple argument that a project is not bankable or not doesn’t work anymore in a Europe that needs strategic investments with relevance beyond any country’s borders and may be relevant for to partners in the East or some regional partners for which these investments are critical. I think, for sure, of the investments required for interconnecting the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine to EU.

Last, but not least, I think the national energy strategy should be more rigorous in terms of how the Romanian state can contribute to investments for social energy, the ways in which energy efficiency, and access of vulnerable consumers to energy sources might be supported.

I remember that one year ago, in a similar discussion framework, we mention the renewable energy sector. Over time, I think we have accumulated some burden at national level in regard to new and renewable energy resources. I think the time has come to look more carefully and more wisely at what it means new sources for Romanian energy future. Not just because we have a duty to oppose our development of this sector to other sectors, the coal sector, and I don’t know, the gas sector, but because the reality of the European energy is coming over us. After COP21 in Paris, I do not think we have the luxury anymore to exclude an entire sector for the simple reason that we are not able to find the smart creative methods for attracting investments in this sector. And this, undoubtedly, is not only a question of how to develop the sector itself, but it is related what we can do to so that the national power system to attract investments in order for it to become stronger, and more resilient to cope with pressure from the renewables sector.

As about this emergency expressed by the minister for attracting new technologies within the national energy sector, I believe we have the ability to make this advancement in Romania, to the extent that we will be truly able, Minister, to have a serious discussion on what resources we dispose of for Romania to be part of these new developments, these new technological trends at the European and Euro-Atlantic level. The simple technology import in Romania in the national energy sector is not enough, or, ultimately, is not a measure of Romania’s professional dignity. I think we are capable and, unfortunately, we have to put more brains in it, in order to connect us to the EU energy projects, by the SetPlan, by the transatlantic projects that can be accessed. I am glad the US Department of Energy has a willingness to intervene in order to support in filling the gaps in technology, not only in Romania, but also in the entire region.

This brings me to the last idea I would like to express on this occasion. For sure, I may not be the most appropriate person to say this, because it is assumed that I should stay more on the external issues, not the domestic ones, but we cannot have any external credibility when we start placing a Romanian project on the map – be it a gas project, or a power interconnector, or a project on a new type of nuclear, or anything else – if we have not shown a measure of dignity and professional ownership in the national energy sector. That’s why I call, maybe for the last time before the energy strategy is finished and published, for us to give more attention to the national vein of the energy sector, be it by preserving the full nuclear chain, which is a measure of national dignity, be it by creating a high voltage grid capable to absorb new energy sources and to connect us regionally, be it by reconsidering the profile and the sustainability of the critical national companies in the energy sector, be it about gas or oil production, be it for electricity transmission…

And please allow me to make here a small observation on how the passion for the national energy sector in general and for the national energy manifests. It is impressive, no doubt about it, and I personally am fully dedicated to this project of saving or preserving the national cultural heritage of one of Brancusi’s sculptures. This national effort is very important! But I remind everyone here in the room: has anyone wondered in recent years what happened with the national collection of minerals, the national decades-long heritage of the most important national geological drill cores? What happened to it? Where it is and what will happen to it if we do not intervene in a timely and efficient way? This is, I think, an example of national responsibility, and, generally speaking, a small example on the fact that the energy sector also deserves a little more passion and a little more pathos. I apologize for speaking with such a pathos!