The decisions concerning tariffs taken by the National Agency for Energy Regulation (NAER) during the last two years have been synchronized with the immediate political needs of the government, considers expert of the Institute for Development and Social Initiative “Viitorul” Victor Parlicov, ex-NAER director who applied again for this post. He published a position note on the examination by the Agency of the request to increase the heat tariffs made by SA “Termoelectrica” last August.
The author says that in order to give legitimacy to such decisions, the NAER resorts to ‘creative juridical solutions’, exploiting the legislative exceptions and shortcomings, defying simultaneously the regulation principles and spirit of the laws that govern this sector. According to him, making use of the fact that the special laws that govern the sector do not ban the suspension of decisions regarding tariffs, in September 2015, before the announced protests, the Agency made such a decision, defying the legislation.
According to Victor Parlicov, invoking an alleged exceptional situation that allows adopting decisions without obeying the stages stipulated by the Law on Transparency in Decision-Making, on January 26, 2016, practically immediately after the inauguration of the new government, the NAER decided that the natural gas tariffs would be reduced, without debating or discussing this decision in a public meeting.
“The tariffs for SA “Termoelectrica” were increased rather under the pressure of the obligations imposed by the foreign partners than because of a responsible attitude to the regulated market – both the consumers and the regulated companies. Thus, the heat tariffs were raised, as it was negotiated with the IMF, as a matter of urgency last September. On the other hand, the adjustment of the electricity tariffs, which wasn’t a formal obligation, was put off until almost yearend, even if this is related to the first from technical and economic viewpoints,” stated Victor Parlicov.
He also said the fact that the NAER is repeatedly looking for ‘ingenious juridical solutions’ to hide the calculation errors suggests that the Agency is unable to prepare decisions.
