Battery energy storage has not merely complemented renewable energy in South-East Europe; it has fundamentally redefined who owns assets, who finances them, who controls dispatch and who ultimately captures value. Wind turbines and solar panels still dominate the physical landscape, but economically they are no longer the centre of gravity. The decisive asset is storage, and the decisive actors are those capable of financing, optimising and governing flexibility at scale.
For most of the past decade, private renewable energy in SEE followed a relatively simple pattern. Local or regional developers secured land, permits and grid access, constructed wind or solar plants and monetised output through feed-in tariffs, contracts for difference or fixed-price PPAs. Ownership value was anchored in installed megawatts and regulatory certainty. Financing relied on a combination of sponsor equity, commercial bank debt and, in some markets, development bank participation. Control sat with whoever owned the project company, and cash flow risk was largely weather-driven.
Battery storage disrupted this model at its core. Once a BESS is integrated, the project ceases to be a passive generator and becomes an active market participant. Revenues are no longer limited to energy production but expand into arbitrage, balancing services, reserve provision, congestion management, curtailment avoidance and, increasingly, synthetic firm capacity. Storage introduces time control, and time control is where volatility rents are captured. This single shift has transformed ownership logic, financing structures and governance across SEE.
In today’s market, the correct question is no longer who owns renewables, but who owns the batteries, who finances them and who controls dispatch rights. Those three elements now determine economic power.
Across South-East Europe, hybrid RES plus storage projects already derive a material share of operating cash flow from batteries. In current market conditions, storage commonly contributes 25–40 % of EBITDA, despite representing a smaller share of installed power capacity. In systems with chronic imbalance, congestion or exposure to extreme price swings, that contribution can exceed 50 % in stress years. This has attracted a different class of owners and financiers than the traditional renewable developer.
Ownership has consolidated around three dominant archetypes. The first consists of international developer-operator platforms that retain long-term control over assets and build regional flexibility portfolios. These entities are not developing projects for exit at commissioning. They are assembling multi-country platforms typically spanning several hundred to several thousand megawatts of wind, solar and storage combined. Their balance sheets can absorb €500 million to well above €2 billion per regional strategy, and they operate in-house trading and optimisation capabilities. Storage assets are never carved out because their value lies in portfolio-wide optimisation across multiple nodes, markets and regulatory regimes. Financing is layered, combining project-level senior debt with portfolio facilities and, in some cases, mezzanine or hybrid instruments. Leverage levels of 65–75 % of total CAPEX have become achievable precisely because storage stabilises cash flow and reduces downside volatility.
The second ownership layer emerges after financial close or early operation, when infrastructure funds and long-duration capital vehicles acquire controlling stakes in hybrid assets. These funds are not chasing development risk; they are buying volatility-managed infrastructure. In transaction after transaction, storage is the decisive valuation driver. Wind or solar alone would not justify the pricing or leverage achieved. In the SEE context, enterprise values of €90–150 million for mid-scale solar-plus-storage assets and €180–280 million for larger wind-plus-storage projects have become realistic. Equity returns compress into the 7–10 % range, reflecting reduced risk and higher debt capacity. The economic owner becomes the fund vehicle, often domiciled outside the host country, while the local project company remains an operating shell.
A third, less visible but increasingly influential group consists of industrial energy users and power traders. These actors frequently take minority equity stakes, commonly 20–40 %, yet exercise disproportionate influence through offtake, optimisation and dispatch agreements. For energy-intensive industries, a renewable plant paired with storage functions as a hedge against price volatility. A 50 MW / 200 MWh storage system integrated with renewables can reduce annual electricity costs by €6–12 million, depending on market conditions. That economic logic justifies equity participation even without majority ownership. Financing structures in such cases often blend non-recourse project debt with corporate balance-sheet support, blurring the traditional line between project finance and corporate finance.
Despite frequent political narratives around localisation and domestic ownership, large-scale battery ownership in SEE remains overwhelmingly driven by foreign capital. This is not primarily a regulatory issue but a structural one. Storage assets require advanced trading capability, balance-sheet depth to absorb volatility and sophisticated risk-management frameworks. Local developers typically monetise value at development or construction completion, crystallising margins of €80 000–€150 000 per MW, while long-term optionality accrues to platforms capable of operating batteries as financial instruments.
The capital intensity of hybrid projects explains this ownership concentration. In current SEE conditions, utility-scale solar typically requires €600 000–€750 000 per MW, onshore wind €1.2–1.5 million per MW, while battery storage commands €350 000–€500 000 per MWh installed. A representative 100 MW solar project paired with 200 MWh of storage therefore carries total CAPEX of roughly €130–160 million, with storage accounting for 45–55 % of the investment. Control follows capital intensity. Whoever finances the battery effectively controls the economic logic of the asset.
This ownership evolution has been enabled by a parallel transformation in the financing ecosystem. Hybrid RES plus storage projects in SEE are now supported by a relatively small but highly specialised group of lenders and capital providers. Multilateral institutions such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the European Investment Bank play a catalytic role. Their participation anchors credibility, extends tenor and reduces perceived technology and market risk. Typical structures involve senior debt with 15–18-year tenors, grace periods aligned with commissioning and ramp-up, and covenant frameworks focused on dispatch performance and market participation rather than simple availability.
Alongside them, international commercial banks with strong energy desks provide parallel senior loans, hedging lines, letters of credit and working-capital facilities. For hybrid assets, all-in debt pricing typically falls in the 300–450 basis-point range over EURIBOR, reflecting higher structural complexity but materially lower cash-flow volatility than merchant renewables. The presence of storage has pushed achievable debt shares to 60–75 % of total CAPEX, compared with 50–60 % for non-storage assets only a few years ago.
Beyond banks and multilaterals, private capital has become a decisive force. Global infrastructure and energy-transition funds managed by groups such as Brookfield Asset Management, Macquarie Asset Management, BlackRock, KKR and Ardian are active across European power markets, including SEE. Their involvement is often indirect, via acquisition of controlling stakes in developer platforms or holding companies rather than single assets, but economically they are the owners that matter. These funds are structurally attracted to storage because batteries convert merchant exposure into something closer to infrastructure-grade cash flow, aligning with long-duration capital mandates.
Private credit funds have also emerged as critical lenders, particularly where banks remain cautious about early merchant exposure, degradation risk or complex revenue stacking. Alternative credit providers linked to groups such as Apollo Global Management and Ares Management increasingly provide senior, unitranche or mezzanine-style debt to hybrid projects. Pricing is higher, often 600–900 basis points over EURIBOR, but these facilities allow projects to reach financial close faster, absorb early volatility and refinance later once cash flows stabilise. In many cases, private credit specifically targets the storage component, recognising it as the highest-return but most complex part of the asset.
Energy traders and integrated power platforms represent another important, if less visible, financing channel. Structured facilities tied to optimisation rights allow these players to finance batteries in exchange for a share of arbitrage or balancing revenues. In such arrangements, the financier becomes a quasi-operational partner rather than a passive lender. Private insurers and reinsurance-backed vehicles increasingly complement this ecosystem by providing performance-linked instruments or insurance-wrapped debt, particularly for degradation and control-system risk.
What emerges is a deliberately layered capital stack. Multilaterals anchor credibility and tenor. Commercial banks provide scale once risk is partially neutralised. Private equity and private credit absorb complexity and volatility in exchange for control and upside. In many SEE hybrid projects, banks participate only because private capital has already absorbed first-loss or early-stage risk. The economic centre of gravity therefore often sits with a private fund controlling equity, optimisation rights or subordinated debt, even when senior lenders appear dominant on paper.
This has profound governance implications. Because lenders and equity investors explicitly underwrite storage risk, they exert far greater influence over EPC scope, warranty structures, grid-connection strategy, software architecture and trading arrangements. Financing documentation increasingly treats the battery as the primary revenue asset, with wind or solar framed as energy feedstock. Dispatch rights, market participation rules and control systems have become bankability issues. In effect, financiers are no longer merely funding assets; they are co-designing how those assets behave in the market.
South-East Europe has therefore entered a new phase of renewable ownership. Wind and solar no longer define control. Battery storage has become the economic centre of gravity, and ownership follows the ability to deploy capital, manage volatility and optimise dispatch rather than geography. The real owners of RES plus storage assets are international developer-operators with optimisation capability, infrastructure funds acquiring control after financial close, industrial and trading players monetising flexibility, and private capital providers structuring risk around batteries.
To understand who truly controls renewables in SEE today, one must follow three threads simultaneously: the batteries, the financing structures and the dispatch rights. Everything else, including nominal project ownership, is secondary.
Elevated by virtu.energy