# Commission Decision (EU) 2017/501 of 12 June 2015 on tariffs applied by Hidroelectrica of Romania to S.C. ArcelorMittal Galați, S.C. Alro SA, S.C. Alpiq RomEnergie S.R.L., S.C. Alpiq RomIndustries S.R.L., S.C. Energy Financing Team Romania S.R.L. (EFT), S.C. Electrica SA, S.C. Electromagnetica SA, S.C. Energy Holding S.R.L., S.C. EURO-PEC SA, S.C. Luxten-Lighting Group SA, S.C. Electrocarbon SA Slatina and S.C. ELSID Titu SA — SA.33623 (2012/C), SA.33624 (2012/C), SA.33451 (2012/C) and SA.33581 (2012/C) (notified under document C(2015) 3919) (Only the Romanian text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance), Division: Sensitivity analysis Extent: E+W+S+N.I. In the previous empirical analysis, the MDD contract was defined as the contract in the dataset, for a given year, that presented the highest price difference in absolute terms (RON/MWh) between the observed price and its corresponding estimated price. In order to check the robustness of the results, a sensitivity analysis was performed. The same analysis was now performed, but defining the MDD contract as the contract with the largest difference between the estimated price and its corresponding observed price, expressed as a percentage of the estimated price. In the sensitivity analysis, the MDD contract was now defined as the contract with the largest difference between the estimated price and its corresponding observed price, expressed as a percentage of the estimated price. While this analysis should not affect significantly the selection of the MDD contract, it could affect the contracts that are selected. The results are shown in Tables 6-9 below. They confirm the validity of the results from the main analysis. Table 6 Sensitivity analysis of contracts from 2007 Note: Prices are rounded up to the nearest RON/MWh. Source: Calculations based on the regression analysis and on the data submitted by the Romanian authorities. Name of customer Name of supplier Observed price Benchmark price Price difference (as a percentage) In line with benchmark indices MDD contract in the dataset AZOMURES SA HIDROELECTRICA […] 124 […] % Contracts under investigation Alro HIDROELECTRICA […] 72 […] Yes Energy Holding HIDROELECTRICA […] 50 […] Yes EFT HIDROELECTRICA […] 127 […] Yes Electromagnetica HIDROELECTRICA […] 111 […] Yes EURO-PEC HIDROELECTRICA […] 111 […] Yes Luxten-Lighting HIDROELECTRICA […] 125 […] Yes ELSID HIDROELECTRICA […] 126 […] No Electrocarbon HIDROELECTRICA […] 126 […] No Table 7 Sensitivity analysis of contracts from 2008 Note: Prices are rounded up to the nearest RON/MWh. Source: Calculations based on the regression analysis and on the data submitted by the Romanian authorities. Name of customer Name of supplier Observed price Benchmark price Price difference (as a percentage) In line with benchmark indices MDD contract in the dataset PETROM SA Energy Holding […] 147 […] % Contracts under investigation Alro HIDROELECTRICA […] 94 […] No Electromagnetica HIDROELECTRICA […] 133 […] Yes EFT HIDROELECTRICA […] 149 […] Yes Energy Holding HIDROELECTRICA […] 73 […] Yes EURO-PEC HIDROELECTRICA […] 133 […] Yes Luxten-Lighting HIDROELECTRICA […] 147 […] No ELSID HIDROELECTRICA […] 148 […] No Electrocarbon HIDROELECTRICA […] 149 […] No Table 8 Sensitivity analysis of contracts from 2009 Note: Prices are rounded up to the nearest RON/MWh. Source: Calculations based on the regression analysis and on the data submitted by the Romanian authorities. Name of customer Name of supplier Observed price Benchmark price Price difference (as a percentage) In line with benchmark indices MDD contract in the dataset Ductil Steel SA Alpiq RomEnergie […] 187 […] % Contracts under investigation Alro HIDROELECTRICA […] 102 […] Yes EURO-PEC HIDROELECTRICA […] 142 […] Yes Alpiq RomEnergie HIDROELECTRICA […] 126 […] Yes Electromagnetica HIDROELECTRICA […] 142 […] Yes Energy Holding HIDROELECTRICA […] 116 […] No EFT HIDROELECTRICA […] 157 […] Yes Luxten-Lighting HIDROELECTRICA […] 156 […] No ELSID HIDROELECTRICA […] 157 […] No Electrocarbon HIDROELECTRICA […] 157 […] No Table 9 Sensitivity analysis of contracts from 2010 Note: Prices are rounded up to the nearest RON/MWh. Source: Calculations based on the regression analysis and on the data submitted by the Romanian authorities. Name of customer Name of supplier Observed price Benchmark price Price difference (as a percentage) In line with benchmark indices MDD contract in the dataset ARCELORMITTAL GALAŢI Electrica […] 182 […] % Contracts under investigation ArcelorMittal Galați HIDROELECTRICA […] 118 […] Yes Electrica HIDROELECTRICA […] 132 […] Yes Energy Holding HIDROELECTRICA […] 107 […] Yes Alpiq RomEnergie HIDROELECTRICA […] 116 […] Yes Electromagnetica HIDROELECTRICA […] 132 […] Yes EURO-PEC HIDROELECTRICA […] 144 […] Yes Alro HIDROELECTRICA […] 93 […] Yes Luxten-Lighting HIDROELECTRICA […] 146 […] Yes EFT HIDROELECTRICA […] 148 […] Yes ELSID HIDROELECTRICA […] 147 […] No Electrocarbon HIDROELECTRICA […] 148 […] No The prices of electricity in contracts between Hidroelectrica and Luxten-Lighting, Electrocarbon and Elsid are still found not to be in line with the benchmark price. The percentage price differences are considerably higher for the contracts with Luxten-Lighting for the years 2008 and 2009 and with Electrocarbon and Elsid for the period 2007-2010. In addition, two other contracts appear, namely with Alro in 2008 and Energy Holding in 2009. The percentage price difference in both cases is very close to the percentage price difference of the MDD contract. The observed price for the 2008 contract with Alro is […] % lower than its estimated price, whereas the percentage price difference in relation to the MDD contract was […] % in 2008. The observed price for the 2009 contract with Energy Holding is […] % lower than its estimated price, whereas the percentage price difference in relation to the MDD contract was […] % in 2009. Overall, these two contracts should be considered to be in line with the benchmark price. In addition to the main sensitivity analysis performed by defining the MDD as a percentage difference in relation to the benchmark price, which confirms the validity of the results, further sensitivity tests of the results obtained from the preferred definition of MDD in absolute values were carried out, as follows: an arbitrary 10 % mark-up was deducted from the absolute value of the MDD: the modified MDD does not affect the conclusion for the contracts under investigation from 2008, 2009 and 2010. For 2007, a difference of 2,5 RON/MWh below the applied price of […] RON/MWh would appear for EFT (i.e. the benchmark-compliant price would have been […] RON/MWh); this difference, not observed for EFT prices in 2008, 2009 and 2010, is deemed to be negligible, likewise, use of the second downward deviation (2nd DD) as reference would capture only two more contracts (Luxten-Lighting and EFT) for 2007, but this does not mean that any other of the contracts under investigation in the period analysed would appear as being below the benchmark prices or that the contract with EFT would appear as being below the benchmark price for 2008, 2009 and 2010, regression data from 2011, not initially tested, was introduced: even if the values shown in Tables 2 to 5 change slightly, the qualitative results remain unchanged, investigated contract prices deemed to be in line with the benchmark price were reintroduced in the regression as dataset (in-sample): in this case too, the conclusion for the contracts under investigation does not change. It follows that these additional sensitivity tests relating to the main approach confirm the robustness of the results of the econometric analysis. --- Source: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eudn/2017/501/annex/II/division/3 (the official version) Page: https://openlegislation.uk/eu-decision-2017-501/annex-II/division-3 Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Source: legislation.gov.uk, The National Archives.