The stress tests make one conclusion unavoidable: Serbia’s energy challenge is not a shortage of megawatts, but a shortage of system control. Energy volume exists, capital interest exists, and regional connectivity exists. What is missing is a coherent strategy that aligns technical reality, financial discipline and institutional responsibility. Without that alignment, shocks will continue to migrate from markets into the balance sheet of the state.
What Serbia should do therefore cannot be reduced to a single technology choice or investment programme. It requires a layered system strategy that addresses firm capacity, flexibility, market design, ownership structure and fiscal exposure simultaneously.
The first priority must be to define and lock in a firm-capacity floor. Serbia cannot afford to drift into a situation where adequacy depends on weather, imports or emergency borrowing. The stress scenarios show that losing even 1–1.5 GW of firm capacity without replacement pushes the system into recurring crisis. Serbia therefore needs a clearly articulated firm-capacity target for the 2030–2040 horizon, on the order of 6.0–6.5 GW of dependable capacity, adjusted seasonally. This target must be treated as a system requirement, not as an outcome of market hope.
In practice, this means extending the life of selected thermal units under strict technical and environmental criteria, while simultaneously planning their structured replacement. Blanket coal exit timelines without replacement logic merely defer the cost and magnify the shock. Life-extension CAPEX of €400–600 million over a decade is materially cheaper than repeated crisis imports costing €300–500 million per year. This is not an ideological choice; it is a cost-minimisation exercise.
Second, Serbia must treat flexibility as critical infrastructure, not as an optional market add-on. The system requires at least 1.5–2.0 GW of fast-response flexibility by the early 2030s, equivalent to 10–15 GWh of storage or its functional equivalent. This can be delivered through a mix of battery storage, pumped hydro optimisation, and limited fast-start gas capacity. What matters is not the technology label but the response speed, duration and controllability.
Crucially, this flexibility cannot be left entirely to merchant investment. The stress tests show that when volatility spikes, private capital captures upside but does not guarantee adequacy. Serbia therefore needs a capacity and flexibility remuneration framework that explicitly pays for availability and response, not just energy. Without such a framework, storage will be built where volatility is highest, not where system need is greatest.
Third, the state must separate system responsibility from commercial exposure. Today, the state-owned utility Elektroprivreda Srbije carries overlapping roles: market participant, social stabiliser, reserve provider and political shock absorber. This concentration of roles is the single largest amplifier of fiscal risk. Serbia does not need to privatise EPS to solve this, but it does need to unbundle responsibilities.
System services, strategic reserves and social tariff obligations should be explicitly contracted and funded, not implicitly absorbed. If EPS is required to hold reserve capacity or sell below cost, that obligation should appear transparently in the state budget. Hidden subsidies are not free; they surface later as debt, emergency loans or deferred maintenance. Transparency is cheaper than denial.
Fourth, Serbia must redesign its renewables strategy around system value, not capacity volume. Wind and solar should continue to expand, but only under conditions that internalise balancing costs. The era of stand-alone, energy-only renewables is closing. New RES capacity should increasingly be required to pair with storage, demand response or firm offtake arrangements that reduce system stress. This is not anti-renewable; it is pro-system.
From a financing perspective, this approach actually lowers risk premiums. Hybrid projects with storage already achieve 10–20 % higher leverage and lower volatility than pure merchant assets. By steering investment toward system-friendly configurations, Serbia can attract private capital while reducing public exposure.
Fifth, the grid must be treated as a strategic asset, not a passive conduit. Transmission and distribution investments of €3–4 billion over the next fifteen years are unavoidable given electrification, RES growth and regional trade. The question is whether these investments are reactive or anticipatory. Grid reinforcement must be planned around stress scenarios, not average flows. Failure to do so will create congestion rents for traders and costs for consumers.
Here, coordination with regional corridors matters. Serbia should position itself deliberately within the Western Balkan–Central European power architecture, leveraging interconnections without becoming import-dependent. Interconnectors are insurance, not substitutes for domestic adequacy.
Sixth, Serbia must align lender incentives with system resilience. Today, multilateral lenders and commercial banks finance assets that are individually bankable but collectively destabilising. This is not malice; it is rational behaviour under existing rules. Serbia should therefore push for financing frameworks that reward projects contributing to flexibility, inertia, black-start capability and grid stability. Development banks are receptive to such logic, but it must be articulated clearly.
Over time, this could lower the weighted average cost of capital for system-critical assets by 100–150 basis points, a non-trivial saving at national scale.
Seventh, Serbia needs an explicit energy-fiscal risk framework. Energy shocks are no longer rare. They are probabilistic events with quantifiable expected costs. The stress tests show that under-investment in flexibility raises expected annual system losses by €300–500 million. That figure should be treated like an insurance premium. Spending €200–300 million per year on resilience is cheaper than absorbing repeated billion-euro shocks.
This requires integrating energy stress testing into fiscal planning, public debt strategy and sovereign risk management. Energy policy can no longer sit in a silo separate from macroeconomic governance.
Finally, Serbia must choose engineering realism over narrative comfort. No single technology will save the system. No market mechanism will magically allocate risk fairly. And no transition path is free. The choice is not between green and brown, public and private, domestic and foreign. The real choice is between paying for resilience deliberately or paying for crises repeatedly.
The stress tests make clear that Serbia still has room to act before constraints harden. It has domestic resources, investor interest and regional connectivity. What it lacks is a binding system framework that turns those elements into stability rather than fragility.
If Serbia defines firm capacity explicitly, remunerates flexibility properly, unbundles system obligations transparently, and aligns private capital with public resilience, it can navigate the transition without recurring fiscal shocks. If it does not, the energy system will continue to function—until it doesn’t—and the bill will arrive not as an electricity price, but as a sovereign liability.
Elevated by virtu.energy