Liberalization is postponed, but not canceled – preparation must not stop.
This was the main conclusion of a public debate focused on the topic, with a key emphasis on the role of the active citizen.
Sofia, June 12, 2025 – The applied research lab Net Zero Lab at the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration of Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski” hosted a debate dedicated to one of the most significant decisions in Bulgaria’s energy sector – the latest postponement of the full liberalization of the electricity market for household consumers. The event was held with media support from Economic.bg and was broadcast live on Net Zero Lab’s platforms.
The discussion gathered leading representatives from the energy sector, consumer organizations, academia, journalists, and politicians, who raised questions that remained outside the official public debate:
- Why is full liberalization necessary?
- What are consumers afraid of, and who is (not) addressing those concerns?
- Has the issue of energy poverty and social protection been resolved, or have vulnerable consumers remained in the shadows?
- Who benefits and who loses from the constant postponement of liberalization?
- Were all stakeholders included in the process?
- How can consumers and market participants be prepared for future liberalization of the electricity market?
The discussion was opened by Assoc. Prof. Dr. Atanas Georgiev, Dean of the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration at Sofia University, who emphasized that true liberalization of the electricity market goes beyond the mere option for consumers to choose a supplier. According to him, it also involves the integration of innovative technologies that place the consumer at the center of the energy system – as an active participant, not just a bill-payer.
Dr. Maria Trifonova, Deputy Director of the Net-Zero Lab, continued the discussion by emphasizing the importance of informed consumer participation. She noted that earlier this year, the lab launched an educational campaign titled “Conscious Consumer Choice,” aimed at enhancing energy literacy and public understanding of market changes. Through a series of short informational videos available on the official platform, the academic team seeks to bridge the gap between knowledge and society – particularly in areas that require conscious decision-making and critical thinking. She stressed that, according to empirical studies, while some fully liberalized markets experience price reductions, liberalization alone does not guarantee sustainably lower household costs, as various other factors – technological, managerial, and geographic – play a significant role in determining the final price.
Experts largely agreed that a fair and sustainable energy transition is only possible with active citizen participation, where individuals understand their role and take responsibility for their consumption and choices. Transparency in energy costs and investments can only be achieved when consumers are not passive observers, but informed and engaged in decision-making. This requires not only technological changes such as smart meters, but also political will and consistent measures to support vulnerable households with targeted compensations, to create a framework and incentives for active consumer participation, and to provide access to objective and timely information. A strong emphasis was also placed on the state’s role – not just as a regulator but as an initiator of the long-awaited information campaign to prepare the public for effective participation in a more dynamic and competitive energy market.
Here’s what else the panelists said during the discussion:
Atanas Dimov, Executive Director of Electrohold Trade EAD and Deputy Chairman of the Association of Traders with Energy in Bulgaria (ATEB):
“Our position has always been consistent – we support all steps taken by institutions and the state toward market liberalization, because we believe the most appropriate approach is to create conditions for market competition, where prices and conditions are determined by market equilibrium. The market is the most accurate regulator and provides the clearest signals for further sustainable development of the energy sector. This is the only way to form fair conditions and prices that apply to all.”
Daniela Penkova, Chief Economist at Podkrepa:
“We lack a strategy to respond and protect consumers. A national strategy must be created, as we have 30% energy-poor households compared to an EU average of 14%. I am firmly against liberalization. It hasn’t been postponed – it begins on July 1 with the wholesale market, which is actually more problematic than the retail one. There will be no improvement in terms of energy – it will remain the same as today. This is not a real market, but a mechanism that creates inequality.”
Dr. Bogomil Nikolov, Executive Director of the Bulgarian National Consumer Association:
“Times have changed because technologies now offer opportunities that didn’t exist before. We can’t keep receiving bills and just paying them – that’s unconscious, even foolish behavior. Existing technologies won’t last forever – they will be replaced, and this process will be painful if we don’t manage it. If we avoid liberalization, we’re banning our own progress, setting our own limits. The transition won’t be easy, but there’s no turning back.”
Sonya Nikolova-Kadieva, Chairperson of the Management Board of the Free Energy Market Association and CEO at Energy Supply Ltd.:
“The philosophy of the free electricity market is simple – what is produced must be consumed at every moment so that the system operates optimally. The goal is to minimize system costs, which requires excellent planning and for this to happen, each consumer must know their consumption at any given moment and have access to accurate data in order to actively manage their electricity use. But that is still not a given, and right now we’re seeing signals that don’t accurately reflect actual market prices.”
Nadezhda Gancheva, Senior Analyst, Energy and Climate Program, Center for the Study of Democracy:
“The debate should have been organized by the authorities. In our country, liberalization is perceived in two ways: as a scary and misunderstood change, and as an opportunity for political dividends. When we talk about prices – everyone has an opinion. But when it comes to a complex process that requires consistency beyond a single term, the conversation disappears. And the topic is crucial – for democratization of the energy sector, active consumers, and decarbonization. The delay of liberalization often serves to prolong subsidies for coal plants. Liberalization and tackling energy poverty must not be viewed separately – we need transparency, trust, an independent regulator, and clear communication. That’s the job of politicians, not just sector stakeholders.”
The full recording of the debate is available at the following link: https://youtu.be/CydAG3bzZbw