Renewable-energy valuations across South East Europe are increasingly shaped by questions beyond installed capacity. Buyers are assessing whether projects are grid-secured, whether revenue is contracted, and how curtailment risk could affect cash flows. They are also evaluating whether storage can be added, how exposed assets are to merchant price moves, and whether local balancing markets are mature.
The differing emphasis on deliverability versus early-stage potential has contributed to a wide spread between speculative development projects and operating platforms. Recent transactions provide benchmarks for how deal values map to operating capacity and portfolio structure. The pricing signals vary by technology, revenue design, asset age, market conditions, financing terms and operating risk.
Greece wind and solar benchmarks for operating contracted portfolios
TotalEnergies sold 50% of a 424 MW operating wind and solar portfolio in Greece. The transaction valued the full portfolio at €508 million, equivalent to about €1.2 million per installed MW. TotalEnergies retained 50% and continued to operate the assets.
EDPR’s sale of a 150 MW operating wind portfolio in Greece to Principia is another reference point. The portfolio included four operating wind farms with an average asset life of about 1.5 years and 20-year Contracts for Difference. The reported enterprise value was around €200 million, implying roughly €1.3 million per MW.
Together, the deals indicate that operating contracted wind and solar portfolios in stronger SEE markets can clear around €1.1 million to €1.3 million per MW. The range depends on factors including technology choice and the structure of revenue. It also reflects differences in asset age, financing assumptions and operational exposure.
Romania acquisition adds operating renewables and pipeline assets
PPC’s Evryo acquisition in Romania provides a larger operating-portfolio benchmark. PPC acquired 629 MW of operating renewables, mainly onshore wind, plus about 145 MW of pipeline assets. The transaction enterprise value was approximately €700 million.
The deal was expected to add about €100 million of annual EBITDA. This reference combines an operating base with additional development exposure rather than a pure operating-asset purchase. It highlights how portfolio composition can influence valuation metrics used in comparisons.
Platform transactions can price above simple MW multiples
The valuation spread is not explained by MW alone, according to the TERNA Energy transaction involving Masdar. TERNA Energy had around 1.2 GW of operating capacity, while enterprise value was around €3.2 billion. On a basic operating MW basis, that figure appears higher than asset-level comparables.
The transaction was described as not being a pure MW comparison. The buyer was paying for a strategic platform that included a development pipeline, market position, management team and pumped-hydro optionality. This distinction reflects differences between asset purchases and platform acquisitions.
Solar frameworks in multiple countries illustrate development-and-construction pricing
For solar valuations, the PPC–Metlen framework agreement covers up to 2 GW of solar projects across Italy, Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia. The transaction value was estimated at up to €2 billion. On that basis, it implies around €1 million per MW.
The structure is framed as a development-and-construction framework rather than a clean sale of operating assets. That affects how buyers price risk and execution requirements across the covered geographies. It also distinguishes framework deals from single-portfolio transfers where output is already established.
Risk de-risking factors tied to grid access, permits and revenue design
A renewable project in SEE is valued higher when it has secured grid connection, land rights and permits. Bankable EPC terms, predictable offtake, low curtailment risk and a credible construction schedule are also cited as value drivers. Projects with only early-stage permits or unclear grid access tend to be valued lower.
Revenue structure is highlighted as especially important for financing confidence. Projects backed by CfDs, feed-in tariffs or strong corporate PPAs usually support better financing terms and higher valuation confidence than merchant-exposed structures alone.
The Romanian CfD scheme has awarded 4.2 GW of solar and wind capacity across two auctions. That total exceeds the country’s 3.5 GW target under its Recovery and Resilience Plan. The figures connect revenue support mechanisms with the scale of contracted capacity awarded through auctions.
Merchant exposure and storage optionality in valuation assessments
Merchant exposure is described as more nuanced than simply negative or positive for all technologies. In high-volatility markets, merchant projects can capture upside through price movements. For standalone solar exposed to midday prices, capture-price pressure can arise as solar penetration increases.
A merchant solar asset without storage or flexible offtake is therefore treated as having different risk characteristics compared with merchant wind or hybrid assets. Storage optionality is identified as a potential differentiator for future valuations in the region.
Bulgaria’s approval of subsidies for 82 standalone battery projects, totaling about 9.71 GWh, is cited as evidence that storage is becoming part of the regional investment map. A solar site with spare grid capacity for batteries may trade at a premium relative to similar sites without that option.
A practical valuation map across operating assets and development stages
The practical valuation map described places operating contracted wind and solar portfolios at the top of the asset-value range. Strategic platforms can trade above simple MW multiples when they include broader capabilities beyond generation capacity alone.