By 2025, electricity pricing for heavy industry in South-East Europe had stopped being a question of headline wholesale averages and had become a question of delivered cost under risk. Across Serbia and its neighbouring countries, the decisive variables for steel mills, copper smelters, cement kilns, fertiliser plants, chemical producers and large food processors were no longer just where the day-ahead market cleared, but how much volatility was embedded into contracts, how expensive imbalance exposure became, and how credible the local market was as a hedging and optimisation venue.
This distinction matters because in 2025, most countries in the region experienced wholesale price levels that were broadly comparable on an annual average basis. The real divergence appeared after supplier margins, balancing costs, grid charges and cross-border risk premiums were added. For heavy industry, those add-ons routinely accounted for €15–40/MWh, sometimes more than the difference in wholesale prices themselves.
Serbia in 2025 sat in the middle of this regional spectrum. It was neither the cheapest nor the most expensive location for energy-intensive manufacturing. Its competitiveness depended almost entirely on buyer profile, contract structure, and exposure to market risk rather than on national averages.
Serbia’s 2025 industrial electricity reality
For large Serbian industrial consumers, the energy component of electricity supply in 2025 typically anchored around €102–106/MWh for well-structured contracts. This anchor was crucial. It provided a degree of predictability that was missing in several neighbouring systems still suffering from crisis-era pricing inertia.
Once transmission, system services, balancing exposure and supplier margin were included, the effective delivered price for heavy industry in Serbia usually fell into a corridor of €115–140/MWh. The width of that corridor reflected structural differences between buyers rather than systemic price instability. Baseload, flat-profile consumers connected at higher voltage levels often sat near the lower end. Peaky or batch-process consumers, especially those passing imbalance costs through, gravitated toward the upper end.
The strength of Serbia’s position in 2025 was not that electricity was cheap. It was that pricing was relatively anchored. Even during volatile market periods, large buyers were often insulated from extreme intraday spikes, provided they had secured structured supply. The weakness was that Serbia’s market ecosystem was not yet deep enough to fully arbitrage volatility away. Suppliers therefore continued to price in a risk buffer, especially for customers with complex load profiles.
Hungary: Liquidity-rich, risk-sensitive
Hungary represents a contrasting model. It is one of the most liquid and interconnected power markets in the region, centred on HUPX. For sophisticated buyers with strong procurement capabilities, Hungary offered excellent optimisation opportunities in 2025. For less sophisticated buyers, it could be unforgiving.
For heavy industry, delivered electricity prices in Hungary during 2025 commonly ranged between €110–140/MWh for well-hedged consumers, but could escalate to €150–180/MWh for buyers exposed to market volatility or imbalance penalties. Hungary’s challenge was not structural scarcity; it was exposure to regional gas-driven marginal pricing and congestion during peak periods.
Compared to Serbia, Hungary offered better tools but demanded better execution. A Serbian steel mill with a stable baseload profile might have enjoyed more predictable pricing at €120–130/MWh than an equivalent Hungarian mill that failed to optimise intraday exposure. Conversely, a best-in-class Hungarian buyer could outperform Serbia by €5–10/MWh through superior market access.
Romania: High prices, high dispersion
Romania in 2025 was characterised by extreme dispersion. Wholesale prices were often elevated, but delivered industrial outcomes varied widely depending on procurement channel and regulatory treatment. For classic heavy industry buyers without preferential arrangements, effective electricity prices frequently landed in the €150–190/MWh range.
Romania’s challenge was not lack of generation—it has nuclear, hydro and renewables—but a market structure where policy intervention and complex pricing layers amplified risk. Some large consumers with strong procurement and legal positioning could do materially better, but for many energy-intensive manufacturers Romania remained structurally more expensive than Serbia in 2025.
For a 24/7 copper processing facility consuming hundreds of gigawatt-hours annually, Romania’s delivered price often exceeded Serbia’s by €20–40/MWh, translating into €10–20 million per year in additional energy cost for a single site.
Bulgaria: Export hub with competitive optionality
Bulgaria was one of the most structurally competitive markets for heavy industry in 2025, anchored by nuclear baseload and deep trading activity on IBEX. Delivered industrial electricity prices commonly fell into a corridor of €140–180/MWh, which appears high at first glance but masks an important distinction.
For sophisticated buyers, Bulgaria’s depth allowed supplier margins to compress. For export-oriented manufacturers able to structure index-linked contracts, Bulgaria often delivered better effective pricing than Serbia despite similar headline ranges. Bulgaria’s export capability also reduced the persistence of local scarcity premiums.
In practice, a Bulgarian steel or cement plant with strong procurement could land within €5–10/MWh of Serbia’s best outcomes, and sometimes below. Less sophisticated buyers, however, faced higher volatility and wider spreads.
Croatia: Comparable cost, better intraday tools
Croatia’s industrial electricity pricing in 2025 often resembled Serbia’s in level but not in structure. Effective delivered prices for large industrial consumers frequently fell in the €115–145/MWh range, broadly comparable to Serbia.
The difference lay in market mechanics. Croatia’s more advanced intraday trading environment allowed suppliers to manage imbalance risk more efficiently. This reduced hidden uplifts embedded in contracts. For peaky industrial loads, Croatia could therefore outperform Serbia on a risk-adjusted basis even if average prices were similar.
Slovenia: Market access as a competitive advantage
Slovenia functioned as a gateway market. Its domestic consumption is small, but its integration with Italy, Austria and Hungary gives Slovenian industrial buyers access to deep optimisation corridors. Delivered electricity prices for heavy industry often looked more “Central European” than “Balkan,” with outcomes driven by procurement sophistication rather than national averages.
Slovenia’s advantage over Serbia was not lower energy prices per se, but lower volatility cost. The ability to hedge and rebalance intraday reduced supplier risk premiums, often by €5–8/MWh compared to less integrated markets.
Western Balkans: Structural penalties for scale and liquidity
Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia and Montenegro illustrated the cost of thin markets. While headline prices could occasionally appear attractive, delivered industrial outcomes were often worse than Serbia’s once risk premiums were included.
In Montenegro and North Macedonia, effective heavy-industry prices in 2025 frequently exceeded €150/MWh during stressed periods, driven by import dependence and thin liquidity. Bosnia and Herzegovina offered occasional advantages during surplus periods but suffered sharp spikes during constrained conditions.
Relative to these systems, Serbia was structurally advantaged. Its scale and partial market depth limited the worst outcomes and enabled some degree of price anchoring.
Three heavy-industry profiles: A quantified comparison
To make the comparison tangible, consider three representative industrial profiles consuming electricity continuously through 2025.
A 50 MW flat baseload facility consumes approximately 438 GWh per year. In Serbia, such a facility typically achieved delivered prices around €120–130/MWh, resulting in annual electricity costs of €52–57 million. In Hungary, outcomes ranged from €50–60 million depending on procurement quality. In Romania, costs often exceeded €65–80 million. In Bulgaria and Croatia, best-in-class outcomes were comparable to Serbia, while weaker procurement pushed costs higher.
A 50 MW peaky industrial load with significant intraday variation faced a different reality. In Serbia, imbalance risk pushed delivered prices toward €130–145/MWh, implying €57–64 million per year. In Hungary and Slovenia, intraday depth allowed this profile to reduce imbalance cost, sometimes outperforming Serbia by €3–7/MWh. In Romania and Montenegro, the same profile could exceed €75 million per year.
A 100 MW 24/7 heavy industrial complex consuming 876 GWh annually magnified these differences. In Serbia, effective electricity costs often landed in the €105–115 million range. In Romania, equivalent facilities frequently faced €130–160 million. In Hungary and Bulgaria, outcomes depended heavily on optimisation quality, with spreads of €15–25 million per year between best and worst cases.
Structural conclusion for 2025
Serbia’s electricity competitiveness for heavy industry in 2025 was not defined by being the cheapest location. It was defined by relative stability in a volatile region. For energy-intensive manufacturers with steady demand and structured procurement, Serbia offered delivered prices that were competitive against most neighbours except best-in-class cases in Hungary or Bulgaria.
Serbia’s disadvantage lay in market depth, not in generation cost. Where intraday liquidity and cross-border optimisation were insufficient, suppliers priced in risk. That risk translated directly into €5–15/MWh premiums for complex industrial loads.
The decisive insight for investors and industrial planners is that in 2025, country averages mislead. Electricity competitiveness in South-East Europe depended far more on market structure and procurement capability than on borders. Serbia performed solidly, sometimes excellently, but its future competitiveness will depend on whether it deepens liquidity and reduces the structural risk premium that heavy industry still pays.
Elevated by virtu.energy