Solar, wind, BESS or hybrid: where should developers invest in Romania in 2027–2028?

No Romanian technology or region offers the best 2027–2028 return without a project-specific assessment. Developers should choose among PV, wind, stand-alone BESS and hybrid schemes by reference to three issues: the probability of reaching COD, capital committed before COD and the ability to contract or manage revenue. Connection capacity, permits and guarantee costs may change investment rankings more than headline CAPEX differences.

Why are MW holding ATRs not enough to guide investment?

ANRE reports projects with approved capacity, but the ATR pipeline must not be mistaken for capacity certain to achieve COD. There are distinct stages: ATR, connection agreement, building permit, ANRE establishment authorisation, construction and energisation. Each removes part of the risk but can introduce other dependencies and funding requirements.

A location with numerous planned projects is neither automatically attractive nor unattractive. It may show investor demand, but also competition for capacity, land and profitable generation hours. Use ANRE data as a screening tool, then validate assumptions against Transelectrica publications, technical studies and actually financed projects.

When does a new solar project make sense?

Once RTB is genuinely achieved, PV can have a comparatively efficient engineering construction timetable, but profitability remains sensitive to the price captured during daylight generation. Use hourly OPCOM data, a local production profile and price scenarios rather than assuming a single general market price for 2028. If all output remains merchant, compare an offtake agreement, sleeved structure or co-located battery.

Land, planning, licences and connection can dominate seemingly low headline CAPEX. Excellent irradiation adds limited value if export is constrained or cable rights cannot be secured. Screen PV as a combined generation, capture-price, connection, permitting and total-cost proposition.

When might wind be more attractive?

Wind has a different generation profile and may diversify exposure away from midday prices, but requires robust wind-resource data, potentially complex approvals, turbine logistics and impact assessment for birds and habitats. Environmental and site constraints may be material, particularly near protected areas; Law No. 292/2018 and Natura 2000 rules can be relevant.

Do not compare wind and PV solely in EUR per installed MW. Compare levelised project cost, captured production profile, resource uncertainty, time to consent, infrastructure CAPEX and offtake structures. A well-documented wind site with a viable timetable may outperform a larger scheme suffering from unresolved development risks.

When can stand-alone BESS have an advantage?

BESS provides flexibility and may access arbitrage and system-service revenue subject to rights, qualification and technical performance. Its income remains sensitive to price volatility, competition, efficiency, degradation and financing costs. Compare MW power, battery duration and usable MWh carefully: a two-hour system is not economically identical to a four-hour installation.

The European Commission approved a Romanian storage aid scheme in March 2026, but aid is not automatically awarded to each scheme. Evaluate the base investment without grant support and treat eligibility as an additional variable. An attractive historical spread does not guarantee 10–15 years of revenues.

Does hybridisation always improve value?

No. PV+BESS and wind+BESS can improve utilisation of infrastructure, land and connection capacity, but increase legal and operational complexity. Confirm ATR import/export limits, dispatch priorities and whether adding a battery triggers changes to authorisations or securities. Storage can add value through shaping in some cases; in others, cost of capital, degradation and grid restrictions consume the upside.

The investment model must distinguish produced, stored, imported and exported electricity and apply real losses and restrictions. Avoid counting the same energy twice in the investment presentation. The optimiser agreement, PPA and financing must fit the plant's technical operating logic.

How should region and market-entry timing be selected?

Transelectrica publishes its transmission development plan, capacity zones and allocation procedure. These support screening but are not guarantees of a connection date for a specific site. From 2026, capacity auctions and associated securities have increased the importance of development liquidity. For 2027, model participation, allocation and connection costs using the current regulatory formula, not a supposedly permanent flat assumption.

Use an Investment Screening Scorecard assessing every option on the same axes: land and zoning, grid, ANRE milestones, environment, CAPEX, cost of capital, revenue profile, accessible markets, bankability and exit potential. The decision should be go, investigate or no-go with missing evidence clearly identified.

Hypothetical example: the investment decision

*Hypothetical example, not a reference to an actual project.*

A sponsor hypothetically compares an 80 MWdc PV park, a 60 MW wind project and a 50 MW/200 MWh BESS. Solar has lower relative CAPEX but a long cable route; wind has good resource measurements but an unstarted environmental process; BESS has a promising connection point but no optimiser contract or contracted revenue. None can be declared the winner from those headlines alone. A scorecard needs quantified costs, delay probabilities and distinct revenue cases.

Developer Action Checklist: what should be checked in the next 30–90 days?

1. Define power and energy using the correct units: MWdc, MWac, approved export MW and MWh as appropriate. 2. Check ATR/allocation and total grid cost before committing to land. 3. Use revenue sensitivities rather than treating future prices or grants as certain. 4. Include planning under Law No. 169/2026, environment and ANRE deadlines in one risk score. 5. Decide portfolio priorities through capital at risk, time to COD and exit optionality.

Conclusion and next steps

In 2027–2028, the strongest opportunity is one where the developer demonstrates the best balance between implementation risk, capital committed and commercial value, not the most impressive revenue slide. A document-led go/no-go decision may save more value than a marginal land-price negotiation.

Request a project-specific assessment. Grigorescu & Partners can review the key documents and prepare a focused risk, deadline and action report. Discuss a mandate or Email us the project details.

Primary sources and verification date

*Analysis updated on 12 October 2026.*

---

Editorial note: For general information, not project-specific legal advice. Applicable rules depend on project history, documents, contracts and subsequent amendments.