Energy resilience lessons for Romania from Bulgaria and Ukraine

Summer is over, but Romania’s energy problems have not disappeared with the heat. Another dry summer will eventually come round again, while instability across the region continues. Crisis increasingly seems to be the rule rather than the exception. This is a good moment to look back at what happened in Romania this summer and at what neighbouring countries are doing that could help it prepare for the next crisis.

The drought put pressure on several parts of the system at once. Hydropower production fell, while low Danube levels forced both reactors at Cernavodă to shut down. By mid-September, the nuclear plant had been completely offline for about a month, temporarily removing a source that normally provides around 20 per cent of Romania’s electricity production. Solar generation, meanwhile, helped meet demand during the day, but the pressure returned in the evening.

Romania has been adding renewable generation without giving enough attention to the storage, grid upgrades and market rules needed to make full use of it.

This lack of flexibility became particularly visible in the evening, when solar output fell while demand remained high and drought left hydropower less able to cover the gap. The government’s calls for citizens to reduce consumption, together with efforts to encourage prosumers to discharge their batteries, helped ease the pressure but also exposed how much flexibility was still missing from the system.

Concentrating production in a few large installations leaves the system vulnerable when the same drought affects several of them at once. More renewable generation spread across the country, supported by batteries and stronger networks, would give more options when part of the system is struggling.

Bulgaria puts batteries to work

In Bulgaria, the growth of solar power has made investment in batteries increasingly attractive. As more electricity became available during the day, prices sometimes fell below zero, while evenings remained expensive. Batteries offered a way to keep some of that daytime electricity available for later, when solar production was falling and prices were rising.

One important reason Bulgaria has been able to expand storage so quickly is its decision to commit more than 600 million euros from the EU’s Recovery and Resilience Facility. Although the country went through repeated elections and governments changes, support for these storage projects remained in place. Developers could therefore move ahead with the funding available and clear deadlines for completing their projects. This continuity, alongside private investment and the growing need to store solar electricity, helped the country build a substantial battery fleet in just two years.

By early September 2026, Bulgaria had 5.4 GW of battery capacity in operation. The expansion is already changing the market, with batteries beginning to narrow some of the price differences that attracted investors in the first place.

For Romania, this is relevant because adding more solar panels will continue to leave a gap after sunset unless storage develops alongside them. Funding batteries, improving grid connections, and maintaining support through changes of government would help address that gap. Bulgaria’s experience gives Romania a nearby example of how quickly investment can move when those conditions come together.

Ukraine brings power closer

Ukraine has had to make this transition under far more difficult conditions. Years of Russian attacks and occupation have removed large parts of the country’s power system from operation. After the attacks of spring 2024, nearly two-thirds of Ukraine’s dispatchable generating capacity was occupied, damaged or destroyed. Romania’s temporary outages this summer represent only a limited sense of the pressure Ukrainian cities and communities have been facing for several years.

Part of the response has been to repair and protect large energy infrastructure. But another important lesson has been the value of producing electricity closer to where it is actually needed. By 2024, Ukraine had lost almost 90 per cent of the capacity of its large coal and gas-fired power plants, compared with around 14 per cent of its installed solar capacity. Smaller, distributed installations are not immune to attacks, but losing one of them has a much smaller impact on the wider system, while damaged equipment can generally be repaired or replaced more quickly.

This has encouraged a growing focus on local solutions. Across the country, municipalities, utilities and civil society organizations have been investing in smaller solar and storage systems that can keep essential services running even when the wider grid is under pressure.

One example is Ecoclub’s Solar Aid for Ukraine programme, which supports solar installations for hospitals, water utilities and other public facilities. The 86 installations listed in the programme’s monitoring table have a combined capacity of the photovoltaic modules is 4.4 MW, and the battery capacity is 2,250 kWh. Individually, these are relatively small installations, but they serve facilities where even a short interruption can have immediate consequences for local communities.

The outpatient clinic in Horenka, near Kyiv, shows what this can look like in practice. After the building was damaged by Russian shelling, its reconstruction included a heat pump, 12 kW of solar panels and an eight kWh battery. The system has been operating since January 2023. During the day, solar panels help power the clinic and charge the battery, which can then provide electricity during outages, while the heat pump reduces the clinic’s dependence on its previous heating system.

This transition is not only about equipment. Local authorities also need the people, knowledge and planning capacity to decide where these investments are most useful and how they fit into longer-term reconstruction. The ongoing SUN4Ukraine project, for example, pairs Ukrainian cities with EU Mission Cities and provides technical support to integrate climate and energy objectives into recovery planning.

For Romania, Ukraine offers a very different but equally relevant lesson from Bulgaria. Resilience does not depend only on having enough generation capacity at national level. It also depends on how distributed that capacity is, whether essential services can continue operating when parts of the system fail, and whether municipalities have the tools to invest in local solutions. Ukraine has been forced to develop this approach under extreme pressure, but the underlying lesson is useful well beyond wartime.

Next steps for Romania

Romania should give local energy projects a much bigger role in its energy security planning. A hospital equipped with solar panels and storage, or a water utility able to keep essential pumps running during an outage, should no longer be seen as an exceptional project. These solutions can become a normal part of how cities prepare for disruptions. District heating systems belong in the same discussion, since their pumps, controls and other essential equipment also depend on a reliable electricity supply. But this requires more than simply installing solar panels.

Most systems cannot continue operating during a blackout unless they are packed with batteries and the equipment needed to safely disconnect from the grid. Also, investment in distribution networks is important, both to connect new projects and to allow locally produced electricity to be used more effectively.

When it comes to planning heating and cooling, EU municipalities with more than 45,000 inhabitants have to prepare local plans. But how much this helps in practice depends on how national governments translate these requirements into national law and support local authorities in putting their plans into action.

Local authorities need technical support and funding to develop projects, while energy communities and smaller producers need rules that make participation possible. At the same time, reducing energy demand through more efficient buildings and equipment would reduce the pressure on the system in the first place.

Bulgaria and Ukraine offer very different examples, but both show that energy security is not only about building more generation capacity. It is also about storage, flexibility and the ability to produce and manage energy closer to where it is needed. Giving cities and communities a larger role would make the energy system not only cleaner, but also better prepared for the next period of stress.

Teofil Lata is a project manager at Energy Cities, a European association of municipalities based in Brussels. He has experience in EU policy and the energy transition, with a particular focus on Romania and Central and Eastern Europe, as well as on EU funding, cohesion policy and the role of local partners in European policymaking.