Romania’s coal rewrite threatens final EU payment

Romania's Chamber of Deputies voted 180 to 9 on 5 August to rewrite the country's coal-closure law. Instead of requiring coal and lignite plants to shut by set dates, the new text says no plant closes until replacement low-carbon capacity is built, connected and commercially running (Agerpres, Europa FM). That original law was the basis for a reform the European Commission already approved and paid for. Within a day, the Commission warned the amendment could mean that reform "is no longer considered fulfilled" (HotNews, Ziare).

The bill now sits with President Nicusor Dan, who can sign it into law, send it back to parliament, or ask for constitutional review (Bursa). His decision will determine whether this stays a Romanian coalition fight or becomes a Commission enforcement case.

A closure date replaced by a promise with no deadline

The amendment was backed by PSD (Romania's Social Democrats, the largest governing party) and the nationalist AUR. It turns a fixed coal phase-out into an open-ended condition: no plant shuts until replacement sources are installed, grid-connected and commercially operational (Agerpres). PNL (the centre-right coalition partner) and European projects minister Dragos Pislaru warned it would jeopardise recovery-fund payments (Stiripesurse).

Pislaru put the exposure at roughly €5 billion in future grants. He also flagged about €600 million tied to a milestone already paid (Digi24). Those are the minister's figures, not a published Commission calculation. The Commission's confirmed position is narrower: it will assess whether the new law reverses milestone 114, already cleared in an earlier payment, and whether it blocks milestone 119A, the remaining coal-capacity closure requiring Romania to decommission 710 MW to receive its final instalment (Agerpres, Libertatea).

The clock does the Commission's work

The EU's Recovery and Resilience Facility (the post-pandemic fund that pays countries for completing agreed reforms) does not impose instant penalties. Under Article 24 of the RRF Regulation, the sequence runs like this: Romania requests a payment. The Commission checks whether milestones are met. If not, it can suspend all or part of that payment. Romania gets a month to respond. Permanent cuts follow only after six months without correction.

Bulgaria's recent experience shows the default: the Commission released close to €900 million under Bulgaria's fourth request while withholding money linked to unfulfilled milestones (Economic.bg, European Sting). Partial suspension, not total blockage, is how this usually plays out.

But the calendar squeezes Romania's room. All recovery-fund reforms must be completed by 31 August 2026, and final payment requests filed by 30 September (Brussels Times). If the law stands, Romania cannot demonstrate it met milestone 119A. There is no time to negotiate a workaround.

An energy argument the Commission already rejected

The power-supply concern behind the amendment is genuine. Coal plants across South-East Europe provide winter heat and dispatchable power. Pislaru himself acknowledged the government had told Brussels that coal plants needed to stay online through winter while new capacity comes on stream (Digi24).

The Commission has already rejected that defence for the purposes of the milestone. Romania's electricity supply is stable, the market is functioning, and no emergency justifies rewriting the legal basis of an already-cleared reform (Euronews Romania, Agerpres). Keeping coal plants running through winter is an operational choice governments can make without changing the statute. Rewriting the law changes the bargain Romania used to get paid.

If Dan signs, the Commission faces a concrete enforcement decision: suspend payments, negotiate a revised timeline, or quietly tolerate a softened reform. Tolerance would set a precedent: any member state could bank recovery money, then dilute the reform that earned it. If Dan sends the law back, parliament weighs coal-region politics against billions in EU funding. The same power-supply argument Bucharest used circulates in Sofia and Warsaw, making the Commission's response a signal far beyond Romania.