Can a Romanian Renewable Project Be Curtailed After Grid Connection Because of Earlier ATRs?

Direct answer

Short answer: yes, in certain circumstances. But the risk depends critically on how the project passes the grid calculations performed when it requests energisation for testing.

Under Romania’s grid connection rules, a project that reaches construction and energisation before projects holding earlier Technical Connection Permits (ATRs) does not necessarily obtain permanent priority over those earlier projects.

The decisive distinction is between:

• a project that can pass the first recalculation under Article 47(5)–(6) with all earlier valid ATRs already included; and
• a project that can connect only under the conditional mechanism of Article 47(7)–(7²) after earlier ATR projects that have not yet reached PIF are temporarily excluded from the calculation.

The second scenario can result in subsequent export limitation, temporary disconnection and recalculation of the project’s contribution to general grid reinforcement works if an earlier ATR project later reaches the energisation stage.

For investors financing or acquiring ready-to-build Romanian solar, wind or battery storage projects, this distinction can materially change the economic interpretation of an ATR containing significant reinforcement works.

Article 47 in one table

1. Why this issue matters for Romanian RTB projects

Romania has accumulated a very large pipeline of electricity generation and storage projects holding grid documentation at different stages of maturity.

That creates a recurring practical situation.

A developer acquires or develops an RTB project with:

The developer nevertheless has financing available and can construct its project considerably faster.

The obvious question is therefore:

If our project is built first and connects first, can earlier ATR projects that materialise later reduce our export capacity or cause reinforcement costs to return?

Romanian regulation now answers that question considerably more expressly than it did in the past.

The answer, however, is not simply “yes” or “no”.

2. The first distinction: specific versus general reinforcement works

Before analysing Article 47, the reinforcement works contained in the ATR must first be classified correctly.

Article 42 of the Connection Regulation distinguishes between, broadly:

Specific reinforcement works — network works required specifically for the connection of the individual user.

General reinforcement works — reinforcement required to create the network conditions necessary for several users or projects.

This distinction is essential because the favourable recalculation mechanism at PIF principally concerns general reinforcement works.

Specific reinforcement works required for the individual project generally need to be completed before energisation for testing.

General reinforcement works operate differently. Their actual necessity can depend on the network situation that exists when the project reaches PIF.

That creates an important commercial opportunity.

An ATR may have been issued on the basis of a network model containing several gigawatts of other projects. By the time the project is actually constructed, some of those projects may have disappeared, lost their grid rights or failed to advance.

The question becomes whether all general reinforcement works initially identified remain necessary.

3. What happens when the project requests PIF?

For purposes of this article, PIF refers to the stage at which the project requests energisation for the testing period.

Where the project reaches this stage before all general reinforcement works identified in its ATR have been completed, Article 47 requires the grid operator to perform new network calculations.

This is not merely a repeat of the original connection study.

It is a recalculation based on the network position existing at that later point in time.

The critical change introduced through ANRE Order no. 53/2024 is that the first calculation must expressly take into account not only projects already energised or already requesting PIF, but also projects holding valid ATRs issued before the ATR of the project requesting energisation.

This produces two very different outcomes.

4. Scenario One: the project passes the first Article 47 calculation

Suppose Project A has a 100 MW ATR.

Several projects with a combined 1,000 MW hold ATRs issued before Project A.

Project A nevertheless develops faster and reaches PIF first.

Under Article 47(5), the operator recalculates the network taking into account, among other relevant installations, those earlier valid ATRs.

If the calculation shows that Project A can still evacuate its approved capacity without the relevant reinforcement works, Article 47(6) allows the operator to energise the project for testing.

This is the materially stronger outcome.

Why?

Because the earlier ATR projects have already been incorporated into the successful network calculation.

In other words, the operator has concluded:

the project can connect even assuming those earlier valid connection rights remain relevant.

That matters because the special subsequent curtailment mechanism under Article 47(7²) is expressly directed at projects energised under Article 47(7¹), not projects that passed directly under Article 47(6).

Accordingly, a project passing Article 47(5)–(6) has a substantially stronger position against the specific risk created by earlier ATR holders.

This should not be confused with absolute immunity from all future network restrictions. Separate operational limitations, security-of-supply rules and N-1 conditions may still apply.

But the particular earlier-ATR tail risk is substantially lower.

5. Scenario Two: the project fails the first calculation but passes the second

The more complex case arises when the first calculation is negative.

Suppose the operator concludes:

Project A cannot evacuate 100 MW if all earlier valid ATR projects are included.

Article 47(7) then requires a second calculation.

This time, the operator takes into account only:

• installations already energised; and
• installations that have themselves already reached the PIF stage.
• Earlier ATR projects which have not yet reached PIF are excluded from this second calculation.

If Project A can now be accommodated, Article 47(7¹) permits energisation.

But there is an explicit condition:

Article 47(7²) remains applicable.

This is the key regulatory trade-off.

The project obtains earlier physical access to currently unused grid capacity.

It does not necessarily obtain permanent priority over projects holding earlier valid ATRs.

6. What happens when an earlier ATR project later reaches PIF?

This is precisely the situation Article 47(7²) addresses.

If:

• operate at reduced power; or
• be temporarily disconnected,
• until those reinforcement works are completed.

The regulation does not prescribe a standard percentage of curtailment.

Depending on the technical result, a 100 MW project could theoretically be reduced to:

The operator must determine the actual power that can continue to be exported and communicate the status and planned completion date of the required reinforcement works.

This is therefore a genuine revenue risk, not merely a theoretical legal qualification.

7. Does “first to build” therefore mean “first in the queue”?

Not necessarily.

This is one of the most important commercial conclusions.

A developer that constructs rapidly may obtain a significant first-mover advantage.

But under Article 47(7¹), that advantage can be better understood as:

early use of currently available network capacity

rather than:

permanent priority over earlier valid ATR holders.

The distinction disappears only to the extent that the technical and legal circumstances eliminate the earlier-ATR exposure.

This can happen, for example, because:

8. When does the risk from an earlier ATR disappear?

There is no single statutory period such as 6, 12 or 24 months.

The relevant pool consists of projects holding ATRs that remain valid and were issued before the ATR of the project under review.

Consequently, the risk should be analysed dynamically.

An earlier ATR which ceases to be valid before reaching the relevant PIF stage no longer has the same relevance under Article 47(5)(c).

For due diligence purposes, investors should therefore not simply ask:

“How many MW of earlier ATRs exist?”

A more useful analysis is:

For each earlier project, record: MW, ATR date, ATR validity, Connection agreement, Building permit, ANRE authorisation, Expected PIF, Common reinforcement.

This can materially change the commercial interpretation of a congested grid area.

Two gigawatts of earlier ATRs do not necessarily represent two gigawatts of equal probability.

9. The risk is financial as well as operational

Article 47 does not deal only with curtailment.

If the Article 47(7²) recalculation shows that certain general reinforcement works have become necessary, the operator must also recalculate the component of the connection tariff representing the user’s contribution to those reinforcement works.

Article 47(7⁴) requires the recalculation to consider only those reinforcement works that result as necessary from the updated network calculation.

Article 47(7⁵) then provides that the user either:

• pays the recalculated amount; or
• receives the relevant difference back if it has previously overpaid.
• The resulting amount is reflected through an amendment to the connection agreement.

This creates two distinct downside scenarios for an RTB project:

Revenue downside: temporary reduction or loss of export capacity.

CAPEX/grid downside: a contribution to reinforcement works becomes payable or is recalculated.

These risks should be modelled separately.

10. Does the ATR show the maximum reinforcement exposure?

This requires some nuance.

An ATR may identify substantial reinforcement works, but three different concepts should not be confused:

• the gross cost of the network reinforcement
• the project’s regulated contribution to those works; and
• amounts that a user might in some situations advance to accelerate common works.

For general reinforcement works, the user's economic exposure is therefore not necessarily equal to the gross construction cost appearing in the technical documentation.

Moreover, Article 47(7⁷) provides an important protection: reinforcement works resulting from this later mechanism cannot be additional to those already provided for in the ATR.

This means that the ATR effectively establishes the relevant technical envelope for the Article 47 mechanism.

However, the monetary exposure can subsequently change because only the works that actually remain necessary are taken into account in the recalculation.

In practical terms:

the ATR may describe the original technical worst case, but it does not necessarily represent the permanent economic cost ultimately borne by the project.

11. What is the connection certificate and does it end the ATR?

Another frequently misunderstood issue is the relationship between the ATR and the connection certificate (certificatul de racordare or CfR).

The connection certificate is issued by the relevant grid operator following completion of the required connection and compliance stages.

The ATR does not remain indefinitely in force alongside the final connection certificate.

Under the Connection Regulation, the ATR remains valid until the connection certificate for the final approved capacity is issued.

From that moment, the CfR becomes the central document describing the technical conditions applicable to the connected installation.

This is important because outstanding restrictions can effectively migrate from the ATR into the connection certificate.

12. Can a connection certificate still contain reinforcement-related limitations?

Yes.

Article 52 specifically allows a connection certificate to be issued before every general reinforcement work originally contained in the ATR has necessarily been completed.

Where this happens, the CfR may contain conditions affecting operation, including restrictions on export capacity pending completion of the relevant general reinforcement works.

The grid operator must technically justify such restrictions.

The user can also commission its own recalculation through a specialised technical adviser. Importantly, the operator must provide the network input data required for that verification.

This creates an important procedural safeguard:

the operator determines the network condition, but its technical conclusion is not an unexplained black box.

The user's technical adviser can test the assumptions and calculations.

If the technical disagreement cannot be resolved with the operator, Romanian energy regulation provides complaint/dispute routes before ANRE, without excluding subsequent judicial review.

13. Separate issue: operational curtailment under N-1 conditions

The Article 47 mechanism should not be confused with operational limitations under Article 17.

Following ANRE Order no. 20/2025, Romanian connection studies may expressly include solutions under which the maximum export capacity is operationally limited — potentially even to zero — in identified N-1 network situations.

Those conditions must be reflected in the ATR and subsequently in the connection certificate.

This creates a different type of risk.

Article 47 concerns, principally, whether general reinforcement works remain necessary as projects reach PIF.

Article 17 operational limitation concerns how a connected project may operate under specified network contingencies.

The two risks should therefore be analysed independently.

There is also an important positive element: where a later development of the network eliminates the circumstances that justified an Article 17 operational limitation, the regulation expressly provides for its cancellation and requires the operator to update the ATR or connection certificate on its own initiative and without cost to the user.

14. What should investors analyse at RTB stage?

The most useful analysis is not to assume either:

“all reinforcement cost will definitely be paid”,

or:

“if we build first, the reinforcement disappears”.

Instead, the project should be analysed through scenarios.

Scenario A — Article 47(5) calculation likely to be positive

The network appears capable of accommodating the project even with earlier valid ATRs included.

This produces the strongest Article 47 outcome.

Scenario B — positive only after earlier non-PIF ATRs are excluded

The project may still connect earlier, but it carries the explicit Article 47(7²) tail risk.

The investor should then estimate:

Scenario C — reinforcement remains necessary even in the second calculation

The relevant reinforcement should be treated as a genuine connection dependency rather than a theoretical ATR item.

15. The connection study is therefore more important than the headline ATR cost

A sophisticated grid review should combine:

ATR + connection study + connection agreement + current grid data + earlier ATR population.

This is consistent with the broader approach already reflected in Romanian project diligence: the ATR defines important legal and economic conditions, but the connection study explains the technical assumptions producing them. Grigorescu Partners' existing grid practice expressly focuses on comparing the ATR, solution study, connection agreement and project economics rather than reviewing each document in isolation.

For projects with major reinforcement exposure, investors should identify:

16. Grandfathered ATRs versus Romania's new capacity-allocation regime

The analysis above is particularly relevant to projects that remain under Romania's pre-auction connection regime.

Romania's new competitive capacity-allocation framework for larger projects is intended to move part of the capacity competition upstream.

Under that framework, capacity is allocated competitively before the project proceeds through the subsequent project-specific connection process.

This does not make legacy ATRs inherently “weaker”.

Nor does an auction award eliminate the ATR or connection study.

As Grigorescu Partners has previously analysed, capacity allocation determines who secures access to scarce capacity, while the ATR and connection study continue to determine the project's technical connection conditions.

The structural difference is that the new regime is designed to filter speculative demand earlier through financial commitments, capacity allocation and milestone discipline.

Older valid ATR projects, however, remain legally relevant within the transitional framework applicable to them.

For investors reviewing an existing RTB project, it is therefore essential first to determine which regulatory regime governs that specific project.

17. A practical example

Consider a 100 MW BESS project with an ATR identifying EUR 12 million of general reinforcement works.

Earlier ATRs in the same network area total 800 MW.

A superficial analysis might conclude:

“The project has EUR 12 million of grid reinforcement exposure.”

That may be wrong.

A more useful analysis asks:

Step 1: Are all EUR 12 million actually general works, or are some specific to the BESS?

Step 2: What contribution is allocated to this project under the applicable tariff methodology?

Step 3: Which earlier ATR projects caused each reinforcement work to become necessary?

Step 4: How many of those earlier ATRs remain valid and commercially credible?

Step 5: If the BESS reaches PIF first, does the Article 47(5) calculation pass with all earlier valid ATRs included?

If yes, the reinforcement risk may materially reduce.

If no, but the second Article 47(7) calculation passes, the project may still connect — but with an explicit future risk of curtailment and cost recalculation if an earlier ATR project later reaches PIF.

That is a fundamentally different investment conclusion from simply treating EUR 12 million as fixed CAPEX.

18. Conclusion

Romanian grid reinforcement risk is no longer properly analysed by asking only:

“What reinforcement works are written in the ATR?”

The better questions are:

Are those works specific or general?

Which earlier valid ATRs caused them?

Will the project pass the first Article 47 calculation with those ATRs included?

If not, what is the probability that the earlier projects subsequently reach PIF?

What would the corresponding curtailment and financial contribution actually be?

For an investor, developer or lender, the difference can be significant.

A project carrying substantial reinforcement works in its ATR may have a materially lower economic exposure once the individual works, competing projects, PIF mechanics and applicable tariff contribution are analysed properly.

Conversely, being first to construct does not automatically eliminate the rights associated with earlier valid ATRs.

The real value lies in understanding which Article 47 scenario the project is likely to enter — and translating that regulatory outcome into probability, CAPEX, timing and revenue exposure.

Official sources and scope boundary

The primary source is the consolidated Connection Regulation approved by ANRE Order no. 59/2013, particularly Articles 17, 32, 42, 47 and 52. The earlier-ATR calculation and the Article 47(7²) limitation mechanism were introduced through ANRE Order no. 53/2024. The current N-1 wording was further amended by ANRE Order no. 20/2025.

The scope must be checked for each project. Order no. 53/2024 provides that, once the competitive capacity-allocation methodology applies, Article 47(5)-(7⁸) no longer applies to certain projects of at least 5 MW that did not already hold a valid ATR at the relevant application date. The analysis above is therefore especially important for legacy or grandfathered projects that remain governed by these provisions.

Coordinating legal, transaction and technical review

Grid-connection and permitting counsel should classify the reinforcement works, establish the applicable regulatory route and preserve the operator record. Energy disputes support becomes relevant where the calculation, restriction, contribution or completion timetable is contested. For an acquisition or financing, energy M&A and due diligence advice should translate the scenarios into conditions precedent, price protection, long-stop dates and disclosure.

The legal conclusion depends on technical evidence. Technical grid-interface review can test the study assumptions, PIF calculation and N-1 cases. Technical due diligence and lender's technical advisory can then model export loss, reinforcement timing and CAPEX consequences against the construction and financing case.

Related analysis includes Romania's 2026 grid-connection reform, what an ATR means for an energy project and why the ATR and connection study remain necessary under capacity allocation.

This article reflects the consolidated legislation available on 25 August 2026. It is general information and does not constitute legal, technical or financial advice for a specific connection file or network calculation.