Romanian energy COD delays in 2027–2028: who bears the risk when grid works slip?

A project can meet its own construction schedule and still miss COD because network works are unfinished. Simply assigning generic blame to Transelectrica, the DSO or the EPC contractor is not a solution. The developer must identify each party’s precise duties, available contractual remedies, the permitting calendar and statutory deadlines capable of jeopardising the ATR irrespective of the engineering delay. In 2027–2028, legal and technical schedules must be reconciled before the bottleneck materialises.

Who is responsible for each work package?

Start with the grid connection agreement, read alongside the ATR, solution study and technical schedules, rather than with the EPC Gantt chart alone. ANRE Order No. 105/2022 establishes standard agreements for different procurement routes. Distinguish works contracted by the network operator, those delivered through nominated contractors and the developer's user installation. Upstream reinforcement is not identical to the connection installation or the assets inside the plant boundary.

Build a responsibility matrix identifying who designs, obtains permits, procures, pays, supplies documents and signs off each stage. Where a contractual undertaking is vague — for example “the operator shall provide connection” — examine the definitions, schedules and reciprocal duties. A blame discussion without this matrix risks missing an obstruction that remains the developer's own responsibility.

What extension is available when the operator is delayed?

Article 40^1(7)–(10) of the Connection Regulation, as amended in 2026, allows the network operator to seek successive 12-month extensions where operator-responsible connection or reinforcement works require additional time. The mechanism requires transmission of the proposed signed amendment at least 30 days before agreement expiry and timely countersignature under the regulation.

This differs from a user-requested extension, which carries a separate financial guarantee under Article 40^1(2)–(6). Do not assume that every operator delay is automatically covered or that extending the agreement suspends the deadlines for the building permit or ANRE establishment authorisation. Before executing an amendment, check revised energisation milestones, securities, payment obligations and remedies.

How can the ATR be protected while waiting for grid works?

The dangerous scenario arises when the developer treats COD as the project's only legal milestone. Article 36 of the Connection Regulation separately governs building-permit and, for qualifying projects, establishment-authorisation deadlines. ANRE Order No. 15/2026 also introduced a transitional deadline for certain agreements ongoing on 25 May 2026. Operator delay does not, by itself, extend those statutory duties.

Maintain two linked critical paths: statutory permitting and engineering execution. Whenever the operator communicates a new date, check immediately whether amendments, authorisation changes, ANRE submissions or guarantee extensions are needed. Evidence of delay must be assembled before statutory deadlines, not reconstructed after an automatic termination has already taken effect.

What evidence should be preserved?

An effective record includes the signed agreement and schedules, original delivery programme, updated milestones, notices to proceed, operator correspondence, technical committee minutes, comments on technical designs, filed consent applications and partial acceptance records where available. Each event should carry a date, author, critical-path impact and proposed remedy. Verbal statements by a technical contact are not a substitute for formally recorded documents.

This record supports three decisions: a defensible extension request, preservation of potential contractual claims and accurate disclosure to lenders or buyers. In defined circumstances, ANRE Order No. 16/2026 protects an ANRE guarantee from being called where delays are beyond the investor's control and supported by the prescribed evidence. Protecting the guarantee remains a separate issue from preserving ATR validity.

What should EPC and interface contracts actually say?

A bankable EPC agreement cannot responsibly promise an unconditional COD date where energisation depends on an operator-owned asset. Review grid availability, testing and compliance responsibilities, energisation coordination, extension-of-time (EOT) rights, standby costs, liquidated damages and relief for grid-related delays. COD may be defined differently in the EPC, PPA, financing documents and connection agreement; misalignment can create penalties despite the contractor being unable to influence the grid asset.

Instead of relying on an abstract “force majeure” clause, address operational events expressly: operator access, planned outages, substation unavailability, SCADA testing, interconnection preconditions and submission of the user-installation file. Not every network delay legally constitutes force majeure. Each allocation of risk should be contractual and evidence-based.

When does formal escalation make commercial sense?

The first response should usually be a carefully documented formal notice asking the operator to identify remaining works, a credible timetable, reasons for delay and an extension proposal where appropriate. Meanwhile, the developer must continue performing its own obligations. A strongly worded letter sent too late does not resurrect an ATR that has ceased to be valid by operation of law.

A contentious route must be evaluated against contractual duties, evidence, applicable ANRE dispute mechanisms and demonstrable loss. Full recovery of hypothetical merchant revenues cannot be promised; causation, foreseeability and proof require separate analysis. The overriding commercial objective remains to preserve the project and obtain a deliverable connection date.

Hypothetical example: the investment decision

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

An 80 MW wind farm has almost completed internal works, but energisation depends on reinforcement of a substation. The operator indicates a nine-month delay while the establishment authorisation and connection agreement expire earlier. A single protest letter is inadequate: before the relevant deadlines, the developer should prepare contractual amendments, supporting evidence, guarantee extensions and an EPC EOT analysis. This is hypothetical and does not assume an automatic entitlement to damages.

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

1. Map every operator, EPC and SPV obligation against the ATR, connection agreement and technical schedules. 2. Update the engineering critical path together with statutory ANRE and building-permit deadlines. 3. Document each delay through registered correspondence and preserve supporting evidence. 4. Check operator-initiated and user-requested extensions and their associated security requirements. 5. Align COD, EOT and delay damages definitions across EPC, PPA and financing documents.

Conclusion and next steps

When grid works slip, the decisive question is not only who is at fault but which right expires first and which document can preserve it. A timely Grid Delay & Liability Report can turn fragmented correspondence into an executable decision for the developer, operator and lender.

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.