Free energy at lunch reduces the evening bill. The PPC experiment shows how customers, suppliers, and the energy system can win simultaneously.

The introduction of active energy at zero price by PPC for 5,000 clients represents, beyond a smart marketing campaign, one of the most interesting consumption flexibility experiments conducted so far in the energy market in Romania. Beyond the enthusiasm of press releases, it is worth looking at the numbers and understanding who benefits, who pays, and what the economic logic behind this program is.

The data published by PPC shows that, in the first six time slots with free active energy, the 5,000 participants consumed a total of 71 MWh, benefiting from a cumulative reduction of approximately 61,000 lei. Compared to the total number of participants, the average gain is modest – approximately 12 lei per registered client (0.096 lei/kWh, 7.3%) or 14.5 lei for each client who actually changed their consumption behavior (0.116 lei/kWh, 9.2%). At an individual level, the amount is not spectacular, but the value of the experiment should not be sought here.

The essential element is that participants consumed 28.6% more in the free intervals than in the same intervals the previous month. Of the 71 MWh consumed, approximately 55 MWh represents consumption that would have occurred anyway, while about 15.8 MWh constitutes additional consumption generated by the incentive offered by PPC.

The fundamental question is whether this free energy represented a real cost for the supplier or, on the contrary, produced savings in the entire energy system. To answer, we can start from a simplified hypothesis, but relevant for the situations frequently encountered during this period. According to OPCOM data for May 2026, in the absence of additional consumption at noon, the energy available in the system was exported at approximately 130 lei/MWh, while the energy needed in the evening to cover consumption was imported at approximately 1,200 lei/MWh.

In this situation, the 71 MWh consumed in the free intervals would have been worth only 9,230 lei if they had been exported. In contrast, if the same amount of energy avoids purchases at the high prices during peak evening hours, the potential savings reach almost 76,000 lei. The result is surprising. Although PPC granted clients a benefit of 61,000 lei, the savings achieved by reducing exposure to high evening prices can exceed this amount. In this scenario, the program no longer appears as an expense, but as a mechanism for economic optimization of the client portfolio.

In the most favorable interpretation, the involved clients gain 61,000 lei, while the difference of approximately 15,000 lei remains in the system, which can be distributed between PPC and the other clients through lower supply costs. In other words, there are no losers; the surplus solar energy is utilized locally instead of being exported cheaply, and consumption is shifted from expensive hours to hours with abundant energy.

However, there is also a more cautious interpretation. We do not know how much of the 71 MWh truly represents consumption shifted from peak evening hours. If only the 15.8 MWh of additional consumption effectively contributed to reducing consumption during expensive hours, then the systemic savings drop to approximately 17,000 lei. In this variant, the benefit granted to clients exceeds the savings achieved, and PPC bears a net cost of approximately 44,000 lei. The program then becomes more of a marketing exercise, customer loyalty, and consumer behavior shaping.

The reality likely lies somewhere between these two extremes. Part of the consumption was certainly shifted from other time slots, part represents new consumption, and another part would have occurred anyway at noon. That is why the true value of the experiment does not lie in the 61,000 lei granted to clients, but in the information obtained about the flexibility of residential consumption in Romania.

For the first time, a supplier is testing on a relevant scale how quickly and how much clients can adapt their behavior when the price of energy reflects the reality of the system. And the response is encouraging: over 83% of participants reacted to the signals sent and modified their consumption.

This is, in fact, the stake of the future. As photovoltaic production continues to grow, the system's problem will no longer be the lack of energy at noon, but its excess and the deficit during evening hours. In this context, programs like the one launched by PPC do not represent just a promotional campaign, but a possible model for the future energy market: fewer subsidies, more price signals, and consumers rewarded for flexibility.

And if a MWh consumed at noon can avoid a MWh purchased in the evening at a price nearly ten times higher, then free energy no longer seems free at all. It becomes an economic tool through which consumers, suppliers, and the energy system as a whole simultaneously benefit.

If the PPC model (with energy at cost price) were extended to all suppliers after the urgent installation of about 1.5 million smart meters, according to the simulation made by AEI, the following would be obtained:

• Hours with low or moderate deficit (positive) would have price reductions of 50–700 lei/MWh.

• Hours with high surplus (negative) would frequently drop below 100 lei/MWh.

• Current peaks of over 1,200–1,350 lei/MWh would almost completely disappear.

• There would be a strong compression of volatility to approximately 40–800 lei/MWh instead of 50–1,350 lei/MWh. The flexibility program would lead to a reduction in peak hour prices and implicitly in energy costs:

• clients who modify their behavior and consume during the day (lower prices during peak production hours) (0.05 – 0.11 lei/kWh, approx. 8%);

• suppliers (lower acquisition costs) (0.01 – 0.03 lei/kWh, approx. 5%);

• non-participating clients (lower prices in offers) (0.005 – 0.02 lei/kWh, approx. 2%);

• industrial consumers exposed to PZU through concluded contracts (0.05 – 0.15 lei/kWh, approx. 16%);