The Romanian energy transition: ambitions and limitations

Malgorzata Kulbaczewska-Figat, Vladimir Mitev

Alin Tănase is the campaign coordinator for Greenpeace Romania. He is passionate about geography, has a master’s degree in environmental engineering, and joined Greenpeace to raise awareness about environmental issues in Romania. Andrei Crăciun is the energy communities campaigner at Greenpeace Romania. He is a promoter of energy democracy. Cross-border Talks discussed with them about the ongoing just transition in Romania, about the ambitions of the Romanian states, as well as limitations. 

The first part of the interview examines the “just transition” model of Germany and Poland, where pre-investment in alternative industries eased the shift away from coal. It discusses Romania’s current efforts, citing a successful, though isolated, example of a small community in Gorj County (Rovinari) attracting automotive investors. It also jighlights the struggles of other regions like the Jiu Valley, where according to the interview a lack of a cohesive strategy and poor infrastructure have hindered progress.

The second part explores the political landscape, particularly the rhetoric of the former Minister of Energy Sebastian Burduja , who used a narrative of “national energy independence” and “energy security” to justify the delay of the coal phase-out and the promotion of new fossil fuel projects. The Greenpeace Romania expert reflect on what they consider populist arguments, including the claim that Romania could become a regional energy power and a provider of energy security to neighbors like Moldova. This part also takes on specific, controversial projects such as offshore Black Sea gas fields and a hydropower dam in a national park.

The third part of the interview presents a vision for a decentralized, democratic energy system, advocating for the transition to be driven by local communities rather than large corporations. It advocates for energy communities as a solution to energy poverty and a means of promoting true democracy at the local level. It identifies key barriers to this vision, including restrictive legislation, bureaucratic hurdles, and the ongoing challenge of energy poverty—a problem with no clear official methodology or effective solutions. Finally, the interview concludes by noting that even well-intentioned programs, like those offering solar panels, can be elitist and fail to address the needs of the most vulnerable citizens.

Malgorzata Kulbaczewska-Figat: Let us talk about the issue of just transition. Consider regions like Germany’s Ruhr Bassin or Poland’s Upper Silesia, often cited as examples of a transition that has advanced – despite their difficulties. A key factor in their relative success was investing in alternative industries before phasing out the old ones. People leaving the extraction sector had some idea of what awaited them.

Is Romania doing anything similar? Are there investments or initiatives in place?

Alin Tănase: I’m thinking of a small community in the lignite-mining region of Gorj County – Rovinari – where a young mayor seemed to understand the process. After he was elected, he started attracting investors. As far as I know, there are now automotive-related industries there – one example I’ve heard is the production of steering wheels.

Unfortunately, other industries are still connected to the coal power plants. They use by-products from the plants, such as for making construction materials like gypsum boards. This was covered in a documentary by Bankwatch and 2Celsius, focusing on Rovinari and how the mayor is trying to help the community.

Andrei Crăciun: Other than that, the Jiu Valley comes to mind, though I’m unsure whether they applied a similar strategy. Based on what I’ve seen, they seem to be struggling to get projects off the ground. I don’t think they followed the same kind of pre-transition investment plan.

That’s just my impression, though. I know there was an effort to incubate ideas and support local project initiators, but it seemed fragmented – more like isolated efforts rather than a large-scale strategy.

Jiu Valley is in a unique situation because the worst has already happened – about 20,000 people were laid off. So it’s a different starting point.

When I visited Jiu Valley ast year, I was struck by how poor connectivity could hinder the just transition of the region. For example, our trip from here to Petroșani took seven hours, and that hasn’t improved. Is the government or relevant ministries aware of this issue?

Romania in general has serious connectivity challenges. The rail network has low average speeds, and the highway network is limited. There have been general promises – particularly to the automotive industry-that connectivity issues will be addressed.

For instance, carmakers like Ford and Renault operate in cities like Pitești and Craiova. They need to export to Transylvania, yet as of 2024, there is still no highway connecting southern Romania with Transylvania. Politicians promise to build it every election cycle, but it remains unfulfilled.

Fortunately, there is a rail line connecting Deva, Târgu Jiu, and Craiova. It’s a good point-you don’t have to start from zero; there’s infrastructure to build upon. In Poland, for instance, the regions that are faring best in the just transition process are also the most connected. Silesia and Eastern Wielkopolska have solid transport networks, which makes it easier to attract investment.

I also wanted to ask about public attitudes toward the coal phase-out. You mentioned polarization. In Poland, a few years ago, many people seemed to accept that coal was responsible for air quality problems and that action was needed. Now, though, we’re seeing a resurgence of the narrative that the EU is depriving us of our national energy resources. What’s the mood like in Romania at a national level?

Our previous Ministry of Energy – Sebastian Burduja, heavily emphasizing national energy independence. Of course, this aligns with current geopolitical concerns. The minister was backing many large-scale energy projects – hydropower, for example – including some in protected areas.

Some of these projects date back to the communist era but were abandoned in 1989. For instance, the hydropower project Bumbești-Livezeni in a national park in the Jiu Valley was about 90% complete before it was halted. Yes, he’s very committed to it. He argues that because it was nearly completed decades ago, we should now finish it. However, some NGOs have successfully blocked it in court, and the project is currently on hold. A new permit was released on 14 June 2025. The permit was challenged by Bankwatch a couple of days later on 17 June and a decisive process will follow this afternoon. 

The former minister is a strong advocate for this type of development. I remember seeing one of his video reels – he was standing on top of the hydro project site talking about how it would be finished.

But he also said something that stuck with me – he blamed civil society for stopping such projects. He explicitly named our organization and others as obstacles. He was actively contributing to the polarization of this issue.

He’s not just suggesting a possible delay in the coal phase-out – he’s actually promoting major fossil fuel developments, including offshore projects in the Black Sea and new nuclear infrastructure.

When we decided to phase out coal, we set deadlines for each coal power plant. Some of these plants were also scheduled to be redesigned to run on gas. They were supposed to be switched over. Those plans are now delayed. Some of the transitions should have already happened, but they haven’t. His argument now is that we shouldn’t close any coal plants until the new gas plant is built.Since that plant hasn’t been built yet – and is itself delayed – he argues that we can delay the coal phase-out. This is presented as an act of nationalism and a way to ensure energy security. He even claims that Romania can provide energy security not just for itself, but for the entire region, and become a regional power.

He also talks about supporting some EU member states – specifically mentioning Moldova, which is a sensitive topic. Andrei brought up the new gas project in the Black Sea.

He uses that as leverage. Of course, we want to exploit that resource and end our dependence on Russian gas. His first argument is energy independence.

Then comes regional support: we’ll provide security to our neighbors and “brothers” in Moldova. It’s hard to argue against that – it’s a very populist argument.

Vladimir Mitev: Romania also has ambitions to become the largest natural gas producer in the region. 

In fact, it already reached that status a few months ago.

Other ambitions include developing modular nuclear power plants and launching the Hydroelectrica Stock Exchange. There’s also significant wind potential in the Black Sea. Romania seems to be aiming for a comprehensive energy strategy.

These projects vary, but they all have an ecological aspect that should be taken into account.

Which of these ambitions do you consider realistic?

Our vision is quite simple. We’re working toward a decentralized energy system-producing energy close to where it’s consumed. Of course, we encourage prosumer involvement.

The next step is energy communities. We believe the transition requires large-scale solar and wind development, but it must be done carefully. For onshore projects, we recommend avoiding fertile land and using unproductive land instead.

For offshore wind, biodiversity must be protected. And yes, we oppose fossil fuels. There’s no future for coal, gas, or oil.

Coal should be phased out by 2030, and gas by 2035. That’s Greenpeace’s position. We aim to reach climate neutrality by 2040 – ten years ahead of the European Commission’s current plan.

That’s our overall vision. I’m not sure what the latest version is, but at one point, Greenpeace was drafting a report called Energy Revolution. It outlined how to reach that goal. Each edition (five to date, including the most recent one from 2015) triggered important debates within the global energy sector.

There’s a theory that the transition from fossil fuels to green energy also involves modernizing society – making energy and resources more democratic and accessible. Would you agree?

Yes, exactly – and that’s why the transition must also include a democratic dimension. Local communities finally have a say in what gets produced in their regions. They’re no longer subject to the interests of large energy corporations. Instead, they can decide what they want to produce and how they want their region to develop.

I wanted to ask about this in the context of Bulgaria, where I think this process is currently failing. If needed, I can elaborate, but how much democratization is actually happening? Not just switching to renewables, but really making access to energy more inclusive, modern, and democratic?

That’s a core argument in our advocacy for energy communities.

These communities address the current democratic deficit we’re seeing in Europe, Romania included. When people come together and work under the principle of “one person, one vote,” they engage in a democratic process. It helps people collaborate, identify their needs and resources, and shape their own future.

This is true democracy – not the kind shown on TV or social media, but one built through local action. That’s why the principle of energy democracy is so important to us. Without it, the energy transition risks being dominated by large corporations.

And large fossil fuel companies sometimes shift to producing green energy, right?

Yes, and that’s what we’re seeing in Bulgaria. The large-scale coal industry is transitioning to large-scale solar.

But the underlying issue remains: people are still dependent on big companies. Energy is treated as a commodity sold on the stock exchange. In our vision of energy democracy, energy is a right.

Everyone should have access to clean, affordable energy. This helps prevent energy poverty. That’s why we advocate for energy democracy.

I remember a concrete example from the lignite region of Gorj. We participated in official meetings and proposed that, whenever a worker is laid off from a lignite mine, they should receive compensation – or solar panels – so they could become prosumers immediately after losing their job.

Surprisingly, the idea was accepted – at least on paper. It hasn’t been implemented yet.

Can you elaborate more on that?

This was in the context of the drafted Romanian Decarbonisation Law from 2022. 

We proposed the measure by which laid-off miners from Gorj and Hunedoara will be able to receive non-refundable financing for the purchase of photovoltaic systems with an installed power of 3-5 kW, thus having the opportunity to become prosumers. This proposal was included in the initial draft. A concept paper was developed by Greenpeace Romania at that point

Even though this specific measure was included in the initial draft, in the final version of the law this is formulated in a broader way: “Persons whose individual employment contracts have been terminated as a result of the closure of lignite and coal-based electricity production capacities, as well as the closure of related mining operations, as a result of the provisions of this emergency ordinance, benefit from social protection measures, as well as active measures to combat unemployment under the conditions provided for by the legislation in the field of social protection and by the provisions of the applicable collective or individual employment contracts, respectively concluded at the level of each economic operator.”

It’s a great concept. There’s a similar situation in the Turów region of Poland, but no one thought to involve the miners directly. The Polish energy producer is simply shutting down the lignite mine and installing solar panels. They’ve started using photovoltaics, yes-but like you said, people aren’t actively involved.

In other parts of Europe, energy communities are receiving a share of ownership in local energy projects. If a wind farm is built nearby, the community gets a percentage of it. This is a way to bring them into the project and give them a stake in its success.

Interestingly, just a few days ago – right after the presidential election – the Ministry of Energy announced a plan to install solar panels on every apartment building in Bucharest. It was a populist move, but honestly, a good idea.

But it depends on the homeowners’ association. If they want to move forward, they need to be united.

In some cases, all it takes is one person to oppose it, and the whole project falls through.

That’s how things are at the moment. You need a decision from the tenants’ association, and usually, a two-thirds majority or something similar.

Can apartment blocks install photovoltaics?

While it is possible, the people living in the building would not be able to benefit individually from the energy. For example, if I produce energy in my building, I would only use it for the elevator and lights-it’s for internal consumption of the building only.

The problem is that we don’t have proper legislation. The Ministry of Energy, under Mr. Burduja, and his team haven’t worked on the legislation. 

I would like to make one small comment about the working group at the Ministry of Energy that’s drafting legislation for energy communities. Unfortunately, their approach continues to be market-oriented. For example, they say that if someone wants to set up an energy community, that community needs to get a supplier license. This goes against democratic principles and contradicts the idea promoted by the RED II Directive.

Of course, if you’re talking about a large energy community, then maybe that community needs an energy supply license. However, the authorities should enable small communities to form without putting barriers in their way. Otherwise, it would be difficult for communities to form. That’s a serious issue.

In general, there are barriers to renewable energy for both big and small projects. During the pandemic, the EU decided to approve those projects faster. However, Romania is specifically infringing on this part of the legislation by not transposing it. As a result, projects are taking a lot of time to develop, whether they are for energy communities or large projects.

How serious is the issue of energy poverty in Romania?

It’s a huge problem. Unfortunately, there isn’t an official methodology for addressing it. There are multiple methodologies to describe vulnerable consumers.

Some methods look at how much income the family brings in, and if it’s less than a certain amount, then they are considered a vulnerable household. Others look at the amount of electricity consumed. If you consume less than the set amount, you could be considered a vulnerable consumer. However, there is an opposite example: some people can’t afford proper heating, so they use an old, inefficient electric heater, which exceeds the limit and no longer qualifies for the subsidy.

We have a free electricity market now, starting 1st of July 2025. However, the gas market is still regulated.

There are many examples of how this affects vulnerable people because of their inefficient consumption habits-they exceed that limit. We try to understand the scope of vulnerable energy poverty. It’s difficult to know how many vulnerable communities there are in Romania, and nobody really knows. The way they deal with this is problematic.

We discuss the Casa Verde Photovoltaic prosumer program. However, it may be elitist because it’s dedicated to people who can afford it. I guess the state gives you 80%, but you still need to cover the other 20%.

We were thinking of proposing a similar program focused on vulnerable communities. I mean, maybe it shouldn’t be first come, first served. Maybe there should be other criteria.

For example, you could consider income or the number of children. The size of your apartment can indicate whether or not you are a vulnerable person.

It’s a sensitive topic. Nobody really knows how many vulnerable communities there are, and they’re trying to fix it with small band-aids that aren’t solving the problem.

Photo: Alin Tănase (left)‌ and Andrei Crăciun from Greenpeace Romania (source: Greenpeace Romania)

Subscribe to Cross-border Talks’ YouTube channel! Follow the project’s Facebook and Twitter page! And here are the podcast’s Telegram channel and its Substack newsletter!

Like our work? Donate to Cross-Border Talks or buy us a coffee!

About The Author