Baseload in South-East Europe did not disappear suddenly. It has been eroding quietly, unevenly, and often invisibly, masked by legacy assumptions about system stability. For years, coal and large hydro units continued to anchor prices, absorb volatility, and provide inertia even as renewable capacity expanded. That buffering role is now breaking down, and its loss is the single most important reason why solar and wind variability has become systemically destabilising rather than manageable.
The defining mistake in many SEE transition narratives is treating baseload decline as a linear capacity issue. In reality, baseload erosion is primarily a reliability and availability problem, not a nameplate one. Coal units still exist on paper, but their operational behaviour has changed. Aging fleets across Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, North Macedonia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina are running with lower availability, higher forced outage rates, and reduced ramping flexibility. Maintenance cycles are longer, unplanned outages more frequent, and dispatch certainty increasingly fragile.
As a result, baseload no longer provides what the system implicitly relied on: predictable marginal pricing and shock absorption. In earlier market structures, renewable variability was layered on top of a stable thermal core. Today, renewables are layered on top of a thinning, unreliable foundation. Variability that would once have been smoothed now propagates directly into prices.
This is where baseload erosion interacts dangerously with renewable growth. Solar and wind do not inherently create extreme volatility. They create variability. It is the absence of firm, dispatchable capacity that converts variability into price spikes, imbalance stress, and cross-border contagion. In SEE, the erosion of coal has removed the system’s ability to absorb surprise.
The effect is visible in how price formation has changed. When baseload was dominant, marginal pricing reflected fuel costs and dispatch order. Intraday spreads were limited. Scarcity pricing was rare and localised. As baseload erodes, prices increasingly reflect system stress rather than energy scarcity. A single outage, forecast error, or interconnector constraint can now shift prices across multiple countries within hours.
This fragility is amplified by the fact that baseload decline is not synchronised across the region. Some countries lose firm capacity faster than others. However, in a coupled market, the weakest link matters most. When one system becomes short, neighbouring systems are drawn in through imports until congestion limits are reached. Baseload erosion in one country therefore raises volatility everywhere.
Hydropower, often assumed to replace coal’s stabilising role, cannot fully fill this gap. While hydro provides flexibility, it does not provide permanence. Its availability is seasonal, weather-dependent, and increasingly optimised for value capture rather than system anchoring. In dry years, hydro systems behave like volatile assets, not stabilisers. In wet years, they export surplus rather than guaranteeing evening coverage. Hydro mitigates some volatility but does not recreate baseload behaviour.
Gas-fired generation, where present, also fails to restore baseload characteristics. High fuel price volatility, carbon exposure, and dispatch economics push gas into a peaking or balancing role rather than continuous operation. Gas fills gaps but does not anchor the curve. Its marginal pricing role often reinforces volatility instead of dampening it.
The deeper consequence of baseload erosion is psychological as much as physical. Market participants continue to behave as if a stable core exists, designing contracts, hedges, and procurement strategies around assumptions that no longer hold. Baseload PPAs, flat hedges, and annual procurement logic persist even as the system they rely on disappears.
For industrial buyers, this creates a structural trap. They hedge against average prices in a system increasingly defined by extremes. They secure volume in a market where timing determines cost. They assume residual stability that no longer exists. The result is exposure that only becomes visible during stress, when it is already too late to adjust.
From a trader’s perspective, baseload erosion explains why volatility has become persistent rather than episodic. In a system without a strong thermal anchor, every shock matters. Weather, outages, congestion, and demand deviations all feed directly into price formation. The market moves from equilibrium pricing to reflexive pricing, where expectations of scarcity amplify scarcity itself.
This also explains why volatility clusters. Once baseload erosion reaches a critical point, stress events no longer dissipate quickly. They propagate, linger, and recur. Prices spike not because energy is unavailable on average, but because the system lacks confidence in its ability to respond.
Cross-border coupling magnifies this effect. In a fragmented system, baseload erosion would produce local problems. In a coupled SEE market, it produces regional ones. A coal outage in one country increases imports, tightening neighbouring systems. Those systems respond by raising prices, exporting volatility further. What begins as a domestic reliability issue becomes a regional price event.
Baseload erosion therefore reframes the entire energy transition debate in SEE. The central risk is not that renewables are unreliable. It is that they are being integrated into systems that no longer possess a firm stabilising backbone. Without replacement firm capacity or equivalent flexibility, variability becomes systemic.
This is why volatility in SEE has risen even in periods of ample installed capacity. The system has megawatts, but it lacks confidence. And in power markets, confidence is what keeps prices stable.
Baseload has not simply declined in SEE. Its disappearance has changed the rules of the market. It has turned renewable variability into a force multiplier, transformed cross-border interdependence into a risk channel, and made flexibility the only effective substitute for lost stability.
The erosion of baseload is not a transitional inconvenience. It is the structural condition that defines SEE power markets for the next decade. Understanding it is essential, because without acknowledging what baseload once provided, it is impossible to design what must replace it.
Elevated by clarion.energy