Renewable-energy valuations in South East Europe are being assessed with more detail than in earlier years, when investors focused largely on installed capacity, resource quality and tariff support. Buyers are now asking whether projects are grid-secured, whether revenue is contracted, and whether there is curtailment risk. They also evaluate whether storage can be added, how exposed assets are to merchant price swings, and whether local balancing markets are mature.
The shift in due diligence has contributed to a wide spread between speculative development projects and operating platforms. Recent transactions have been used as benchmarks for what operating assets can command in the region.
Greece wind and solar portfolio benchmarks
TotalEnergies sold 50% of a 424 MW operating wind and solar portfolio in Greece. The deal 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 provides 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.
Romania operating renewables and pipeline assets
PPC’s Evryo acquisition in Romania is cited as a larger-scale operating-portfolio benchmark. PPC acquired 629 MW of operating renewables, mainly onshore wind, plus about 145 MW of pipeline assets. The transaction had an enterprise value of approximately €700 million.
The deal was expected to add about €100 million of annual EBITDA. Taken together, the transactions indicate that operating contracted wind and solar portfolios in stronger SEE markets can clear around €1.1 million to €1.3 million per MW, depending on technology, revenue structure, asset age, market conditions, financing terms and operating risk.
Why platform deals can price above simple MW multiples
The valuation range is not applied mechanically across all transactions. Masdar’s TERNA Energy transaction illustrates why: TERNA Energy had around 1.2 GW of operating capacity, but the enterprise value was around €3.2 billion. On a straightforward operating MW basis, that figure appears higher than asset-level comparables.
The buyer was not paying only for capacity, according to the transaction framing. The consideration included a strategic platform, development pipeline, market position, management team and pumped-hydro optionality. This distinction reflects that asset transactions and platform transactions operate in different valuation markets.
Solar frameworks and revenue de-risking factors
Solar valuations are described as increasingly complex compared with earlier approaches focused on capacity alone. A PPC–Metlen framework agreement covers up to 2 GW of solar projects across Italy, Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia, with a transaction value estimated at up to €2 billion. That implies around €1 million per MW, while the structure is characterized as a development-and-construction framework rather than a clean operating-asset sale.
The underwriting emphasis is on de-risking elements such as grid connection, land rights, permits, bankable EPC terms, predictable offtake, low curtailment risk and credible construction schedules. Projects with only early-stage permits, unclear grid access or merchant exposure in solar-heavy zones are described as worth less under these criteria.
CfDs versus merchant exposure and the role of storage
Revenue structure is highlighted as especially important for financing confidence and valuation outcomes. Projects backed by CfDs, feed-in tariffs or strong corporate PPAs typically receive better financing terms and higher valuation confidence. Romania’s CfD scheme has awarded 4.2 GW of solar and wind capacity across two auctions.
This volume exceeds Romania’s 3.5 GW target under its Recovery and Resilience Plan. Merchant exposure is described as more nuanced: merchant projects can capture upside in high-volatility markets, but standalone solar exposed to midday prices faces capture-price pressure as solar penetration rises.
A merchant solar asset without storage or flexible offtake is therefore treated as having different risk characteristics than merchant wind or hybrid assets. Storage optionality is also presented as a valuation differentiator: Bulgaria approved subsidies for 82 standalone battery projects totaling about 9.71 GWh. A solar site with spare grid capacity for batteries may trade at a premium to a similar site without that option.
A practical valuation map for SEE assets
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 more than individual generating sites.
The same framework notes that ready-to-build projects are valuable only if grid access and permits are real, while early-stage pipelines are discounted. Merchant-only solar is described as becoming harder to underwrite unless storage, offtake arrangements or trading strategy are credible.
The shorthand used is that MWs are cheap when they are theoretical and expensive when they are deliverable.
