Commission Decision (EU) 2017/501 of 12 June 2015 on tariffs applied by Hidroelectrica of Romania to S.C. ArcelorMittal Galați, S.C. Alro SA, S.C. Alpiq RomEnergie S.R.L., S.C. Alpiq RomIndustries S.R.L., S.C. Energy Financing Team Romania S.R.L. (EFT), S.C. Electrica SA, S.C. Electromagnetica SA, S.C. Energy Holding S.R.L., S.C. EURO-PEC SA, S.C. Luxten-Lighting Group SA, S.C. Electrocarbon SA Slatina and S.C. ELSID Titu SA — SA.33623 (2012/C), SA.33624 (2012/C), SA.33451 (2012/C) and SA.33581 (2012/C) (notified under document C(2015) 3919) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Data as of 2026-07-04 · Compiled from an official source version. Later amendments or repeals may not be reflected; the official text prevails. · Read the official text ↗
The contracts concluded between Hidroelectrica and ArcelorMittal, Alpiq RomEnergie, Alpiq RomIndustries, EFT, Electrica, Electromagnetica, Energy Holding, Euro-Pec, Luxten-Lighting, Electrocarbon and Elsid, and the contract with Alro, do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
This Decision is addressed to Romania.
ANNEX I OVERVIEW OF THE CONTRACTS SA.33451 ELECTRICITY TRADERS Date of signature and contract period (initial period/after extension of period) Date of termination Quantity Price (RON/MWh) Alpiq RomEnergie 3 April 2008 Initial period: 5 years Prolongation (2009): by 5 additional years (until 2018) 20 July 2012 — 2008: […] GWh — 2009: […] GWh — 2010: […] GWh — 2008: […] — 2009: […] — 2010: […] Alpiq RomIndustries 29 November 2004 Initial period: 10 years Prolongation (2009): by 5 additional years (until end of 2019) 20 July 2012 Initial quantity: 1 GWh — 2007: […] — 2008: […] — 2009: […] — 2010: […] — 2007: […] — 2008: […] — 2009: […] — 2010: […] Energy Financing Team Romania (EFT) 25 March 2004 Initial period: 7 years Prolongation (2010): by 5 additional years (until end of 2015) 18 July 2012 Initial quantity (2006): […] GWh — 2007: […] GWh — 2008: […] GWh — 2009: […] GWh — 2010: […] GWh — 2007: […] — 2008: […] — 2009: […] — 2010: […] Electrica Contract 111 : 17 August 2010 Contract 112 : 14 September 2010 Contract 111 31 July 2011 Contract 112 31 December 2010 Contract 111 […] GWh from September 2010 to 31 July 2011 Contract 112 […] GWh from October to December 2010 Contract 111 — 2010: […] Contract 112 — 2010: […] Electromagnetica 21 April 2004 Initial period: 10 years 30 April 2014 Initial quantity: […] GWh — 2007: […] GWh — 2008: […] GWh — 2009: […] GWh — 2010: […] GWh — 2007: […] — 2008: […] — 2009: […] — 2010: […] Energy Holding 14 January 2004 Initial period: 10 years 24 July 2012 Initial quantity: 3 692 GWh — 2007: […] GWh — 1st half 2008: […] GWh — 2nd half 2008: […] GWh — 2009: […] GWh — 2010: […] GWh — 2007: […] — 2008: […] — 2009: […] — 2010: […] EURO-PEC 3 March 2004 Initial period: 10 years 26 June 2012 Initial quantity: […] GWh — 2007: […] GWh — 2008: […] GWh — 2009: […] GWh — 2010: […] GWh — 2007: […] — 2008: […] — 2009: […] — 2010: […] Luxten-Lighting 2 March 2004 Initial period: 10 years December 2011 Initial quantity: […] GWh — 2007: […] GWh — 2008: […] GWh — 2009: […] GWh — 2010: […] GWh — 2007: […] — 2008: […] — 2009: […] — 2010: […] SA.33581 ELECTRODES PRODUCERS Date of signature and contract period (initial period/after extension of period) Date of termination Quantity Price (RON/MWh) Electrocarbon 28 March 2003 Initial period: 5 years Prolongation (2004): by 5 additional years (until 31 March 2013) 31 March 2013 Initial quantity: 800 GWh — 2007: […] GWh — 2008: […] GWh — 2009: […] GWh — 2010: […] GWh — 2007: […] — 2008: […] — 2009: […] — 2010: […] ELSID 18 December 2002 Initial period: 5 years Prolongation (2004): by 5 additional years (until 31 March 2013) 31 March 2013 Initial quantity: 280 GWh — 2007: […] GWh — 2008: […] GWh — 2009: […] GWh — 2010: […] GWh — 2007: […] — 2008: […] — 2009: […] — 2010: […] SA.33624 Alro Date of signature and contract period (initial period/after extension of period (if applicable)) Date of termination Quantity Price (RON/MWh) Alro 8 September 2005 Initial period: 7 years Prolongation (2010): by 5 additional years (until 31 January 2018) Ongoing until end of 2018 Initial quantity: […] GWh — 2007: […] GWh — 2008: […] GWh — 2009: […] GWh — 2010: […] GWh — 2007: […] — 2008: […] — 2009: […] — 2010: […] SA.33623 ARCELORMITTAL GALAŢI Date of signature and contract period (initial period/after extension of period (if applicable)) Date of termination Quantity Price (RON/MWh) ArcelorMittal 23 December 2009 Period: 1 year 22 December 2010 Period: 1 year 31 December 2010 6 January 2012 […] GWh […] GWh 2010: […] 2011: […]
ANNEX II ASSESSMENT OF THE ALLEGED ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE — ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS Rationale and description of the econometric analysis The econometric analysis undertaken by the Commission is designed to create benchmark prices for contracts. These prices result from a regression analysis carried out on the features of the contracts in the dataset. As a first step, the regression analysis allows a benchmark price to be constructed on the basis of the characteristics of the contracts in the dataset (‘in-sample predictions’). As a second step, the results of the regression analysis are used to predict a benchmark price for the contracts investigated, taking into account the characteristics of the contracts (‘out-of-sample predictions’). In the regression analysis, the variation in prices among the contracts in the dataset is explained with reference to the following characteristics: quantity purchased, supplier identity and year dummies. The ‘contract duration’ and ‘buyer off-take profile’ variables are not included since they are not statistically significant. The econometric analysis rests on the principle that there are a number of drivers of prices, such as quantities. It would be misleading to compare the prices across different contracts without considering these drivers. In particular, whereas the contracts in the dataset have certain characteristics in common with the contracts under investigation (bilateral negotiation, bespoke conditions, quantities above 150 GWh per year, etc.), no contract in the dataset has exactly the same quantities, or was concluded for the same duration and with the same entry into force, as the contracts under investigation — a factor that may justify price differences. For example, two contracts under investigation concern supplies of […] GWh/year (Alro 2007-2010) and […] GWh/year (Energy Holding 2007-2008). In the meantime, the contract with the highest quantity in the dataset out of the 114 price/contract data observed between 2007 and 2010 did not exceed 1 400 GWh/year. It is doubtful whether a mere comparison of prices for these contracts could allow any valid conclusion to be drawn as to whether the contracts under investigation were in line with market prices. Alternatively, it could be concluded that these two contracts could not simply be compared with other market contracts. The rationale of this quantitative exercise is therefore that, once a number of external factors are taken into account, the prices across different contracts can be better compared. In the absence of normalisation, only perfectly identical contracts could be compared meaningfully. It should be noted that this empirical exercise is not aimed at estimating a causal relationship between prices and certain external factors. For example, estimating a causal relationship between certain factors and prices would require the risk of endogeneity to be taken into consideration: that is, the risk that a causal variable (e.g. the quantities) might itself be influenced by the explained variable (e.g. the price), due to omitted variables or simultaneity bias. The purpose of the quantitative exercise is to ‘normalise’ the prices across different contracts to enable a better comparison to be made between them. This normalisation is necessary in the absence of perfectly identical contracts and supply characteristics. The regression analysis reflects the main features of the bilateral contracts at issue: — including the quantity variable in the regression reflects the fact that prices are in general lower when quantities purchased are higher ( 1 ) , — including the supplier identity reflects the fact that some suppliers have characteristics which would allow them to establish prices differently from others, taking into account that contract supplies from virtually all electricity suppliers active in Romania are included in the dataset, — including year dummies reflects the time dimension and the possible change in market conditions from one year to another. As regards the first step of the empirical analysis, the results of the regression analysis of the dataset contracts are reported in Table 1 below. As regards the second step of the empirical analysis, the Commission has identified a benchmark for every year and has then tested the position of the contracts relative to this benchmark in order to conclude whether the prices charged by Hidroelectrica were lower or higher than the modelled benchmark price. The following steps describe in detail the methodology used to determine the benchmark: Firstly, for each contract of the dataset, it was calculated how far the actual price departed from its corresponding benchmark price, calculated on the basis of the regression and of the characteristics of the contract; Secondly, the most-downward-diverging contract (‘MDD’) was identified; this was the dataset contract whose observed price departed most from its own corresponding benchmark price (in absolute terms). There were reasons, very conservative as they were, for choosing the MDD contract, involving a range of variation below the central estimated value of the benchmark price. Firstly, the econometric model does not fully explain the observed price in the dataset, and the single estimate of the benchmark price was provided with a confidence interval and a margin of error above or below the estimate. Secondly, deviations from a single possible price exist on the real market; the MDD contract, which stems from a contract based on market conditions (see recitals 36 to 38) supplies quantified information about the possible extent of such deviations and provides a market-based range around the calculated benchmark price. Thirdly, the price difference in relation to the MDD contract is used to separate contracts below the benchmark price from contracts above this: — if a contract has an observed price below its corresponding benchmark price and if the price difference for this contract is larger than the MDD price difference, then this contract is considered prima facie not to be market-compliant, — otherwise the contract should be deemed to be market-compliant. The table below presents detailed results from the regression analysis of the sample of contracts from the dataset. The regression explains 74 % of the variations in the data, which is a relatively good fit. The coefficient estimates presented in the table below are used at a second stage to predict the ‘benchmark’ price for the sample of contracts under investigation (‘out-of-sample predictions’). Results of the econometric analysis Table 1 Regression analysis ( 2 ) Dependent variable: Average price Coefficient Std error Annual quantity (GWh) – 0,01951** 0,007878 Year 2008 22,58369*** 4,781887 Year 2009 30,73545*** 5,471158 Year 2010 21,32171*** 5,695673 ALPIQ ROMENERGIE – 2,34966 9,310078 ALPIQ ROMINDUSTRIES – 5,47044 9,975876 ARCELORMITTAL GALATI – 1,78779 14,62595 AXPO ENERGY RO 0,896041 10,40766 CE HUNEDOARA 38,02612*** 11,41575 CE OLTENIA 27,86802*** 9,458818 CEZ VANZARE 9,515878 11,40325 EFT RO 2,966594 18,83573 ELECTRICA 9,787691 11,04511 ELECTROMAGNETICA – 9,19285 9,553932 ENEL ENERGIE MUNTENIA 16,97181 12,529 ENERGY HOLDING – 34,5329*** 9,620757 ENERGY NETWORK 36,58137*** 12,47443 EON ENERGIE 3,589147 12,43953 EURO-PEC 0,511251 9,50637 HIDROELECTRICA – 30,3327** 12,62379 NUCLEARELECTRICA – 9,804 18,78678 OMV PETROM 6,482914 18,79837 RAAN 33,0402** 14,6577 RENOVATIO TRADING 29,5599 18,95553 TINMAR IND 0 (omitted) Constant 160,5678*** 8,50624 Number of observations: 109 R-squared = 0,7426 Adjusted R-squared = 0,6691 Note : Prices are in RON/MWh Source : Commission's regression analysis based on the data submitted by the Romanian authorities. The following tables show the results of the empirical analysis, which uses the regression analysis detailed in Table 1 in which, for each year, the most-downward-diverging contract (‘MDD’) is selected on the basis of the difference in price levels (in RON/MWh) between each contract's estimated price and its corresponding observed price. Tables 2-4 below show the differences between Hidroelectrica's contract prices for each of the years (i.e.: 2007-2010) vis-à-vis the ‘simulated’ benchmark prices for all the contracts under investigation. For 2007, the MDD contract, that is to say the contract in the non-suspect dataset with the highest difference between the observed price and its corresponding estimated price, has a price difference estimated at […] RON/MWh. Two Hidroelectrica contracts have an observed price below their estimated price with a price difference larger than […] RON/MWh, namely the contracts with Electrocarbon and Elsid, with an observed price difference of approximately […] RON/MWh (see Table 2). Table 2 Analysis of contracts from 2007 Name of customer Name of supplier Observed price Benchmark price Price difference (in absolute terms) In line with benchmark indices MDD contract in the dataset AZOMURES SA HIDROELECTRICA […] 124 […] Contracts under investigation Alro HIDROELECTRICA […] 72 […] Yes Energy Holding HIDROELECTRICA […] 50 […] Yes EFT HIDROELECTRICA […] 127 […] Yes Electromagnetica HIDROELECTRICA […] 111 […] Yes EURO-PEC HIDROELECTRICA […] 111 […] Yes Luxten-Lighting HIDROELECTRICA […] 125 […] Yes ELSID HIDROELECTRICA […] 126 […] No Electrocarbon HIDROELECTRICA […] 126 […] No Note : Prices are rounded up to the nearest RON/MWh. Source : Calculations based on the regression analysis and on the data submitted by the Romanian authorities. For 2008, the price difference in relation to the MDD contract is estimated at […] RON/MWh, and three Hidroelectrica contracts have a larger price difference, namely those with Luxten-Lighting, Electrocarbon and Elsid, with an observed price difference of approximately […] RON/MWh for Luxten-Lighting and […] RON/MWh for Electrocarbon and Elsid (see Table 3). Table 3 Analysis of contracts from 2008 Name of customer Name of supplier Observed price Benchmark price Price difference (in absolute terms) In line with benchmark indices MDD contract in the dataset PETROM SA Energy Holding […] 147 […] Contracts under investigation Alro HIDROELECTRICA […] 94 […] Yes Electromagnetica HIDROELECTRICA […] 133 […] Yes EFT HIDROELECTRICA […] 149 […] Yes Energy Holding HIDROELECTRICA […] 73 […] Yes EURO-PEC HIDROELECTRICA […] 133 […] Yes Luxten-Lighting HIDROELECTRICA […] 147 […] No ELSID HIDROELECTRICA […] 148 […] No Electrocarbon HIDROELECTRICA […] 149 […] No Note : Prices are rounded up to the nearest RON/MWh. Source : Calculations based on the regression analysis and on the data submitted by the Romanian authorities. For 2009, the MDD price difference is estimated at[…] RON/MWh and, again, three Hidroelectrica contracts have a larger price difference, namely those with Luxten-Lighting, Electrocarbon, and Elsid, with an observed price difference of approximately[…] RON/MWh for Luxten-Lighting and of[…] RON/MWh for Electrocarbon and Elsid (see Table 4). Table 4 Analysis of contracts from 2009 Name of customer Name of supplier Observed price Benchmark price Price difference (in absolute terms) In line with benchmark indices MDD contract in the dataset Ductil Steel SA Alpiq RomEnergie […] 187 […] Contracts under investigation Alro HIDROELECTRICA […] 102 […] Yes EURO-PEC HIDROELECTRICA […] 142 […] Yes Alpiq RomEnergie HIDROELECTRICA […] 126 […] Yes Electromagnetica HIDROELECTRICA […] 142 […] Yes Energy Holding HIDROELECTRICA […] 116 […] Yes EFT HIDROELECTRICA […] 157 […] Yes Luxten-Lighting HIDROELECTRICA […] 156 […] No ELSID HIDROELECTRICA […] 157 […] No Electrocarbon HIDROELECTRICA […] 157 […] No Note : Prices are rounded up to the nearest RON/MWh. Source : Calculations based on the regression analysis and on the data submitted by the Romanian authorities. For 2010, the price difference in relation to the MDD contract is estimated at […] RON/MWh, and two Hidroelectrica contracts have a larger price difference, namely those with Electrocarbon and Elsid, with an observed price difference of approximately […] RON/MWh (see Table 5). Table 5 Analysis of contracts from 2010 Name of customer Name of supplier Observed price Benchmark price Price difference (in absolute terms) In line with benchmark indices MDD contract in the dataset SILCOTUB SA ZALAU Energy Network […] 214 […] Contracts under investigation ArcelorMittal Galati HIDROELECTRICA […] 118 […] Yes Electrica HIDROELECTRICA […] 132 […] Yes Energy Holding HIDROELECTRICA […] 107 […] Yes Alpiq RomEnergie HIDROELECTRICA […] 116 […] Yes Electromagnetica HIDROELECTRICA […] 132 […] Yes EURO-PEC HIDROELECTRICA […] 144 […] Yes Alro HIDROELECTRICA […] 93 […] Yes Luxten-Lighting HIDROELECTRICA […] 146 […] Yes EFT HIDROELECTRICA […] 148 […] Yes ELSID HIDROELECTRICA […] 147 […] No Electrocarbon HIDROELECTRICA […] 148 […] No Note : Prices are rounded up to the nearest RON/MWh. Source : Calculations based on the regression analysis and on the data submitted by the Romanian authorities. Sensitivity analysis In the previous empirical analysis, the MDD contract was defined as the contract in the dataset, for a given year, that presented the highest price difference in absolute terms (RON/MWh) between the observed price and its corresponding estimated price. In order to check the robustness of the results, a sensitivity analysis was performed. The same analysis was now performed, but defining the MDD contract as the contract with the largest difference between the estimated price and its corresponding observed price, expressed as a percentage of the estimated price. In the sensitivity analysis, the MDD contract was now defined as the contract with the largest difference between the estimated price and its corresponding observed price, expressed as a percentage of the estimated price. While this analysis should not affect significantly the selection of the MDD contract, it could affect the contracts that are selected. The results are shown in Tables 6-9 below. They confirm the validity of the results from the main analysis. Table 6 Sensitivity analysis of contracts from 2007 Name of customer Name of supplier Observed price Benchmark price Price difference (as a percentage) In line with benchmark indices MDD contract in the dataset AZOMURES SA HIDROELECTRICA […] 124 […] % Contracts under investigation Alro HIDROELECTRICA […] 72 […] Yes Energy Holding HIDROELECTRICA […] 50 […] Yes EFT HIDROELECTRICA […] 127 […] Yes Electromagnetica HIDROELECTRICA […] 111 […] Yes EURO-PEC HIDROELECTRICA […] 111 […] Yes Luxten-Lighting HIDROELECTRICA […] 125 […] Yes ELSID HIDROELECTRICA […] 126 […] No Electrocarbon HIDROELECTRICA […] 126 […] No Note : Prices are rounded up to the nearest RON/MWh. Source : Calculations based on the regression analysis and on the data submitted by the Romanian authorities. Table 7 Sensitivity analysis of contracts from 2008 Name of customer Name of supplier Observed price Benchmark price Price difference (as a percentage) In line with benchmark indices MDD contract in the dataset PETROM SA Energy Holding […] 147 […] % Contracts under investigation Alro HIDROELECTRICA […] 94 […] No Electromagnetica HIDROELECTRICA […] 133 […] Yes EFT HIDROELECTRICA […] 149 […] Yes Energy Holding HIDROELECTRICA […] 73 […] Yes EURO-PEC HIDROELECTRICA […] 133 […] Yes Luxten-Lighting HIDROELECTRICA […] 147 […] No ELSID HIDROELECTRICA […] 148 […] No Electrocarbon HIDROELECTRICA […] 149 […] No Note : Prices are rounded up to the nearest RON/MWh. Source : Calculations based on the regression analysis and on the data submitted by the Romanian authorities. Table 8 Sensitivity analysis of contracts from 2009 Name of customer Name of supplier Observed price Benchmark price Price difference (as a percentage) In line with benchmark indices MDD contract in the dataset Ductil Steel SA Alpiq RomEnergie […] 187 […] % Contracts under investigation Alro HIDROELECTRICA […] 102 […] Yes EURO-PEC HIDROELECTRICA […] 142 […] Yes Alpiq RomEnergie HIDROELECTRICA […] 126 […] Yes Electromagnetica HIDROELECTRICA […] 142 […] Yes Energy Holding HIDROELECTRICA […] 116 […] No EFT HIDROELECTRICA […] 157 […] Yes Luxten-Lighting HIDROELECTRICA […] 156 […] No ELSID HIDROELECTRICA […] 157 […] No Electrocarbon HIDROELECTRICA […] 157 […] No Note : Prices are rounded up to the nearest RON/MWh. Source : Calculations based on the regression analysis and on the data submitted by the Romanian authorities. Table 9 Sensitivity analysis of contracts from 2010 Name of customer Name of supplier Observed price Benchmark price Price difference (as a percentage) In line with benchmark indices MDD contract in the dataset ARCELORMITTAL GALAŢI Electrica […] 182 […] % Contracts under investigation ArcelorMittal Galați HIDROELECTRICA […] 118 […] Yes Electrica HIDROELECTRICA […] 132 […] Yes Energy Holding HIDROELECTRICA […] 107 […] Yes Alpiq RomEnergie HIDROELECTRICA […] 116 […] Yes Electromagnetica HIDROELECTRICA […] 132 […] Yes EURO-PEC HIDROELECTRICA […] 144 […] Yes Alro HIDROELECTRICA […] 93 […] Yes Luxten-Lighting HIDROELECTRICA […] 146 […] Yes EFT HIDROELECTRICA […] 148 […] Yes ELSID HIDROELECTRICA […] 147 […] No Electrocarbon HIDROELECTRICA […] 148 […] No Note : Prices are rounded up to the nearest RON/MWh. Source : Calculations based on the regression analysis and on the data submitted by the Romanian authorities. The prices of electricity in contracts between Hidroelectrica and Luxten-Lighting, Electrocarbon and Elsid are still found not to be in line with the benchmark price. The percentage price differences are considerably higher for the contracts with Luxten-Lighting for the years 2008 and 2009 and with Electrocarbon and Elsid for the period 2007-2010 . In addition, two other contracts appear, namely with Alro in 2008 and Energy Holding in 2009. The percentage price difference in both cases is very close to the percentage price difference of the MDD contract. The observed price for the 2008 contract with Alro is […] % lower than its estimated price, whereas the percentage price difference in relation to the MDD contract was […] % in 2008. The observed price for the 2009 contract with Energy Holding is […] % lower than its estimated price, whereas the percentage price difference in relation to the MDD contract was […] % in 2009. Overall, these two contracts should be considered to be in line with the benchmark price. In addition to the main sensitivity analysis performed by defining the MDD as a percentage difference in relation to the benchmark price, which confirms the validity of the results, further sensitivity tests of the results obtained from the preferred definition of MDD in absolute values were carried out, as follows: — an arbitrary 10 % mark-up was deducted from the absolute value of the MDD: the modified MDD does not affect the conclusion for the contracts under investigation from 2008, 2009 and 2010. For 2007, a difference of 2,5 RON/MWh below the applied price of […] RON/MWh would appear for EFT (i.e. the benchmark-compliant price would have been […] RON/MWh); this difference, not observed for EFT prices in 2008, 2009 and 2010, is deemed to be negligible, — likewise, use of the second downward deviation (2nd DD) as reference would capture only two more contracts (Luxten-Lighting and EFT) for 2007, but this does not mean that any other of the contracts under investigation in the period analysed would appear as being below the benchmark prices or that the contract with EFT would appear as being below the benchmark price for 2008, 2009 and 2010, — regression data from 2011, not initially tested, was introduced: even if the values shown in Tables 2 to 5 change slightly, the qualitative results remain unchanged, — investigated contract prices deemed to be in line with the benchmark price were reintroduced in the regression as dataset (in-sample): in this case too, the conclusion for the contracts under investigation does not change. It follows that these additional sensitivity tests relating to the main approach confirm the robustness of the results of the econometric analysis. ( 1 ) A preliminary processing of the data eliminated four (non-suspect) contracts corresponding to the intra-group sales of ALRO from 2007 to 2010, as they are likely to reflect market conditions different from those prevailing in bilateral contract negotiations between a supplier and an independent buyer, which is the crucial factor in this case. ( 2 ) Standard errors are presented in parentheses: *** means that the coefficient is statistically significant at a 1 % level, ** means that it is statistically significant at a 5 % level and * means that it is statistically significant at a 10 % level.
Source: EUR-Lex (Publications Office of the EU), © European Union, reuse permitted under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU.