Romania Day-Ahead and Intraday Markets: Trading, Not Aggregation

Practical legal guidance on Romanian power markets, licensing scope and bankability risk.

Why aggregate participation on DAM/ID exists, but system-level VPP aggregation remains a balancing-only function

1. Introduction: where the VPP narrative meets Romania's market design reality

Across Europe, Virtual Power Plants (VPPs) are increasingly associated with short-term wholesale markets. In several jurisdictions, aggregated portfolios of batteries, renewable generation and flexible demand already participate in Day-Ahead and Intraday trading as a single commercial interface.

It is therefore understandable that many market participants assume the same model applies in Romania.

It does not - at least not in the same legal and operational sense.

In Romania, Day-Ahead (PZU/DAM) and Intraday (PI/ID) markets do allow aggregate participation at market level, as recognised in ANRE and OPCOM rules. However, this form of aggregation must not be confused with system-level aggregation, as implemented and validated by the Transmission System Operator (Transelectrica) for balancing services.

The distinction matters.

This article explains:

• what aggregate participation on DAM/ID legally is - and what it is not;
• why references to "aggregated transactions" in OPCOM documentation do not create a system-level VPP right;
• where the legal boundary lies between wholesale trading and balancing-grade aggregation;
• why blurring that boundary exposes participants to regulatory, contractual and bankability risk.

2. The legal architecture of short-term wholesale markets in Romania

Romania's short-term wholesale markets sit at the intersection of EU market-coupling rules and national implementation. Four instruments are decisive:

Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 (CACM)
Establishes the EU framework for market coupling, order matching and capacity allocation on Day-Ahead and Intraday markets.

Regulation (EU) 2019/943
Defines the concept of market participant and allocates responsibility for market conduct and imbalances.

ANRE Regulations and OPCOM operational procedures for PZU and PI
Implement CACM at national level and define how participants access and trade on the markets.

The OPCOM Participation Convention for short-term markets
A standard-form contractual framework governing participation, including individual and aggregate participation modes.

Taken together, these instruments do recognise aggregate participation at market level, but they do not establish a system-recognised aggregation role comparable to balancing aggregation.

That difference is structural, not semantic.

3. How DAM and ID are designed to function

3.1 Participant-centric markets, even where aggregate participation exists

Under CACM and OPCOM rules, DAM and ID remain participant-centric markets:

• orders are submitted by a market participant;
• responsibility for nominations and imbalances rests with that participant (or its PRE/BRP);
• clearing and settlement occur at participant level.

Even where a participant trades in aggregate mode, the market continues to see:

• a single contractual counterparty;
• a single balance-responsible entity;
• no system-recognised aggregated operational unit.

There is no equivalent on DAM/ID to the UD/CD/ISD constructs used in balancing.

This is deliberate. EU market-coupling algorithms (PCR/SIDC) are designed to:

• match orders,
• allocate cross-border capacity,
• settle trades,

- not to validate, supervise or control the internal physical composition of aggregated assets.

3.2 What "pure trading" means - and what it does not mean

Calling DAM/ID "trading markets" does not imply simplicity or lack of sophistication.

A participant on DAM/ID may legitimately:

• trade power independently of asset ownership;
• optimise positions across time and products;
• hedge exposures;
• contract with multiple asset owners (tolling, routing, optimisation);
• act as or appoint a PRE/BRP;
• participate in aggregate mode under OPCOM rules.

What the participant does not obtain through DAM/ID participation is:

• system-recognised aggregated dispatch authority;
• TSO-validated control over a portfolio as a single operational unit;
• the right to act as a system-facing VPP.

Those features belong to aggregation as a regulated system function, not to wholesale trading.

4. The OPCOM Intraday Procedure: what it enables - and its limits

The OPCOM Intraday Market Procedure (IDCT/IDA) explicitly allows trading:

• individually, or
• in aggregate participation mode, subject to notification and documentation requirements.

This is important and should not be denied.

At the same time, the procedure:

• defines rights and obligations at participant level;
• does not create aggregated operational units;
• does not introduce technical qualification for aggregation;
• does not impose SCADA, telemetry or dispatch-testing requirements.

In contrast to balancing rules, there is:

• no TSO capability confirmation,
• no validation of aggregated responsiveness,
• no system-level enforcement mechanism.

Legal implication: Aggregate participation on DAM/ID is a market construct, not a system construct.

5. The OPCOM Participation Convention: recognition without transformation

The OPCOM Participation Convention refers to transactions performed "individually or in aggregated form". This wording is often over-interpreted.

Two legal clarifications are essential.

5.1 Contractual recognition vs regulatory effect

The Convention is:

• a contract, not a licence;
• subordinate to ANRE regulations, OPCOM procedures and EU law.

A contract cannot transform market-level aggregation into system-level aggregation requiring TSO validation.

5.2 Systematic interpretation

Read together with:

• ANRE regulations,
• OPCOM procedures,
• the absence of DAM/ID aggregation mechanics,

the only coherent interpretation is that:

• the Convention recognises aggregate market participation where allowed by regulation;
• it does not independently authorise VPP-style, system-facing aggregation on DAM or ID.

In Romanian law, recognition does not equal authorisation of system functions.

6. Why aggregation exists in balancing - and only there

The contrast with balancing markets is decisive.

Balancing aggregation:

• is explicitly regulated;
• requires Transelectrica confirmation (TEL-07);
• creates recognised aggregated units (UD/CD/ISD);
• involves real-time system control and enforcement.

DAM/ID aggregate participation:

• is commercial and contractual;
• does not involve TSO validation;
• does not create system-recognised units;
• does not grant system control.

This asymmetry reflects different regulatory objectives:

• DAM/ID optimise commercial exchanges;
• balancing protects system stability.

7. Legal risk of crossing the boundary

If a participant:

• pools multiple third-party assets,
• centrally optimises and controls them,
• presents itself as a single flexible system resource,
• while relying only on DAM/ID aggregate participation,

the activity risks being re-qualified as aggregation in substance, without:

• the appropriate licence scope,
• TSO aggregation confirmation,
• a valid system framework.

In regulated energy markets, functional reality prevails over labels.

8. Practical implications for market entry strategies

The Romanian framework supports a clear sequencing logic:

• Wholesale markets (DAM/ID)- trading licence + OPCOM onboarding - individual or aggregate market participation - no system-level aggregation
• Balancing markets- aggregation capability confirmation - system integration - VPP-type operation

This is why experienced entrants:

• separate trading desks from system-level aggregation,
• avoid grey-zone representations,
• design VPP strategies around balancing, not wholesale shortcuts.

9. Conclusion: precision matters more than slogans

Romania's DAM and Intraday markets are modern, liquid and EU-coupled. They also remain legally conservative by design.

They allow aggregate market participation, but they do not confer system-level aggregation rights.

Any business model that fails to respect this distinction is not innovative - it is legally fragile.

If you are entering the Romanian power markets and need a clean map of what is permitted on DAM/ID vs. what requires separate aggregation qualification and balancing integration, share a short summary of your model and target assets.

Grigorescu & Partners

Get our insights. No spam

Short, practical notes on energy regulation, project bankability, corporate work and tax disputes - written from mandates, not theory.