Prea e cusuta cu ata alba: DNA elimina din fasa o noua capusare a Hidroelectrica ?It Is All Too Blatant: the NAD Nips in the Bud Another Bloodsucker of Hidroelectrica?

Directia Nationala Anticoruptie (DNA) a retinut aseara doi membri marcanti din conducerea Hidroelectrica, intr-un dosar de mită privind vanzarea de energie electrica, in valoare de aproape 263 milioane de euro. Eugen Bradean, director de trading la Hidroelectrica, si Ioan Mihaila, membru in cadrul Consiliului de Supraveghere al companiei si consilier al ministrului delegat pentru energie, Constantin Nita, sunt clientii DNA.

Fara a se preciza cine ar fi urmat sa cumpere energia de la Hidroelectrica si implicit de unde ar fi venit mita, DNA ne trimite direct la oferta facuta pe piata contractelor bilaterale administrata de OPCOM, a companiei Energon Powe&Gas SRL (Cluj-Napoca), pentru o cantitate de peste 7 TWh si o valoare de aproape 263 milioane euro. Energy-Center a scris despre aceasta oferta (https://energy-center.ro/piata-energiei-din-romania/oferta-soc-pe-piata-de-energie-energon-power-gas-srl-vrea-sa-cumpere-peste-7-twh-pe-o-perioada-de-3-ani/), precizand ca niciodata OPCOM nu a inregistrat o asemenea oferta, ceea ce nu inseamna ca in epoca incheierii directe de contracte bilaterale nu au fost semnat contracte chiar mai mari. Am dat si exemple.

Potrivit anchetatorilor, luna aceasta, Ioan Mihaila, in calitate de membru în Consiliul de Supraveghere al Hidroelectrica SA si consilier al ministrului delegat pentru Energie a promis unui alt membru din acelasi Consiliu, denuntator in cauza, 1,4 milioane de euro pentru ca acesta din urma sa voteze favorabil incheierea de catre Hidroelectrica a unui contract bilateral pe patru ani, de vanzare a energiei electrice catre o anumita societate comerciala din Romania, pentru cantitatea de 7.012.800 MWh (1.157.112.000 lei, aproximativ 262.980.000 de euro), ceea ce reprezentau conditii defavorabile pentru societatea Hidroelectrica. Cu alte cuvinte, DNA ne duce direct la oferta Energon Powe&Gas SRL.

Ciudat este ca respectiva oferta avea din start niste „bube”, care nu tin neaparat de pretul de achizitie al energiei (165 lei/MWh), despre care nu se precizeaza daca include sau nu Tg, cat mai ales de anumite clauze contractuale, cum ar fi cea legata de puterea orara si de cantitatea preluata in timpul unei luni de zile, care poate varia intr-o marja de ±20% fata  de cantitatea de referinta. In cazul în care cantitatea preluata efectiv intr-o lună de livrare era mai mica decat  cantitatea de referinta lunara, Energon se obliga sa preia cantitatea restanta in lunile urmatoare de livrare. 

Intrebam specialistii si producatorii de energie: cine isi poate permite o asemenea variatie de ±20% fata  de cantitatea de referinta si mai ales cu ce costuri? De asemenea, in contract nu se spune o vorba despre garantiile ce trebuiesc depuse la cumpararea unei asemenea cantitati de energie. Iata cum suna o anexa la contract:

„a. Cantitatea de referinta lunara reprezinta cantitatea de energie electrica tranzactionata intr-o luna de livrare, corespunzatoare unei puteri orare de 200 MW, in toate zilele calendaristice din luna respectiva, intre orele 00:00 – 24:00;

b. Cumparatorul va putea prelua efectiv intr-o luna de livrare o cantitate care poate varia intr-o marja de ±20% fata de Cantitatea de referinta lunara;

c. In cazul in care cantitatea preluata efectiv de catre Cumparator intr-o luna de livrare este mai mica decat Cantitatea de referinta lunară acesta se obliga sa preia cantitatea restanta in lunile urmatoare de livrare, dar nu mai tarziu de sfarşitul anului calendaristic respectiv…”

De aici incolo se pot face multe speculatii, inclusiv analogii cu „baietii destepti” ale caror contracte au fost reziliate de catre Hidroelectrica in urma cu un an.

De curand, presedintele Consiliului de Supraveghere a Hidroelectrica, Remus Borza, declara ca era pe punctul de a-si da demisia, tocmai pentru ca unii membri ai Consiliului de Supraveghere pun bete in roate vanzarii de energie pe bursa. Ulterior, dupa o intalnire cu primul ministru, Borza s-a intors la Hidroelectrica si a reusit sa deruleze o vanzare importanta de energie pe OPCOM, dupa cateva luni de stagnare in piata.

Ce sa intelegem de aici? Ca primul ministru si Remus Borza, sau invers, nu erau straini de aranjamentele unor membri din conducerea Hidroelectrica si ca au asteptat momentul pentru a-i prinde in plasa?  Daca e asa, ce rol joaca in aceasta ecuatie firma Energon Powe&Gas SRL? E momeala ? Nu stim inca, dar cu siguranta problemele nu se vor opri aici, la o simpla luare sau dare de mita. Este ceva mult mai putred.The National Anticorruption Directorate (NAD) has detained last night two prominent members of Hidroelectrica’s management, in a bribing case related to electricity sales worth nearly €253mn. NAD’s guests are Mr. Eugen Bradean, trading manager at Hidroelectrica, and Mr. Ioan Mihaila, member of the company’s supervisory board and adviser of the minister for energy, Mr. Constantin Nita.

Without mentioning the potential buyer of energy from Hidroelectrica, and inevitably the source of the bribe, the NAD sends us directly to the bid on the bilateral contracts market managed by OPCOM (the Romanian Gas and Electricity Market Operator) announced by Energon Powe&Gas SRL (a company based in Cluj-Napoca) for 7 TWh of energy, worth nearly €263mn. Energy-Center has reported on this offer (https://energy-center.ro/en/piata-energiei-din-romania/oferta-soc-pe-piata-de-energie-energon-power-gas-srl-vrea-sa-cumpere-peste-7-twh-pe-o-perioada-de-3-ani/), mentioning that OPCOM has never seen such a bid before, which does not mean that even larger contracts were closed in the past period of direct closing of bilateral contracts. We even provided examples.

According to the prosecutors, this month, Mr. Ioan Mihaila, in his capacity of member of the supervisory board of Hidroelectrica and advisor of the minister for energy, has promised to another member of the board, an informer in this case, €1.4mn in exchange for the latter’s vote for the signing of a bilateral contract involving the sale by Hidroelectrica, to a unnamed Romanian company, over a period of four years, of an amount of energy of 7,012,800 MWh (worth 1,157,112,000 RON, equivalent to €262,980,000), which was deemed detrimental for Hidroelectrica. In other words, the NAD leads us directly to Energon Powe&Gas’s bid.

The odd thing is, the bid was flawed from the beginning, not necessarily because of the purchase price of the energy (165 RON/MWh), where it is not specified whether it includes the system tax or not; there are certain clauses, like the one related to the hourly demand and the energy intake over a month, which can vary within a margin of ±20% of the nominal value. If the actual intake over one month was to be smaller than the nominal monthly value, Energon committed to take in the remaining amount during the following months.

We are asking the experts and the energy producers: who can afford such a ±20% variation from the nominal value, and moreover, at what costs? Also, the contract does not say anything about the guarantees to be deposited for buying such an amount of energy. Here’s an appendix to the contract:

„a. The monthly nominal amount is the amount of electrical energy traded over a month of supply, corresponding to an hourly demand of 200 MW, on all the calendar days of that month, between 00h00 and 24h00;

b. The buyer can actually take in over a month of supply an amount that can vary within a margin of ±20% from the monthly nominal amount;

c. If the actual intake by the buyer over a month of supply is smaller than the monthly nominal amount, the buyer commits to take in the remaining amount during the following months of supply, but no later than the end of the calendar year…”

This is the starting point for many possible speculations, including analogies with the’wise guys’ whose contracts were terminated by Hidroelectrica one year ago.

The chairman of Hidroelectrica’s supervisory board, Mr. Remus Borza, has recently announced his imminent resignations, precisely because some members of the supervisory board were opposed to selling energy on the commodity exchange. Subsequently, after a meeting with the prime minister, Mr. Borza returned to Hidroelectrica and managed to complete a major energy sale through OPCOM, after several months of stagnation on the market.

What should we understand from this? That the PM and Mr. Borza, or vice versa, were aware of the maneuvers of some members of Hidroelectrica’s management, and they waited for the right time for busting them? If so, what’s the part of Energon Powe&Gas in all these? Is it the bait? We are not sure yet, but certainly the problems will not stop this simply, with a bribing case. Deep down, there is something much more rotten.