As the energy landscape in Southeast Europe evolves, Elektroprivreda Srbije (EPS) is increasingly seen as falling behind its regional counterparts. The disparity is not rooted in ambition but rather in the execution of projects, particularly within renewable energy and grid-linked investments. While neighboring utilities have transitioned from planning to multi-year construction phases, EPS is still grappling with feasibility-heavy portfolios and has only recently begun to deploy operational assets.
EPS’s most significant recent achievement is the commissioning of the 350 MW Kostolac B3 lignite unit at the end of 2024. This project serves as a testament to EPS’s capability to manage large-scale projects when conditions are favorable. However, it also highlights a fundamental issue: Kostolac B3 took approximately seven years to complete and does not address current system demands for flexible low-carbon capacity or rapid project delivery needed for competitiveness in the upcoming 2026–2030 period.
In terms of renewable energy, EPS has only recently made strides. The company connected its first wind farm, Kostolac (66 MW), to the grid in late 2025, followed by its first utility-scale solar plant, Petka (around 10 MW), also launched in 2025. While these milestones are notable for EPS, they are considered starter projects in a regional context and fall short of establishing a robust execution pipeline.
In contrast, several regional utilities have shifted decisively into an industrial-scale build-out mode. Greece’s public power utility has transformed into a renewables-centric entity, outlining over €10 billion in capital expenditure for new renewable capacity over three years. This approach emphasizes a sequenced delivery program supported by consistent engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contracts and financing strategies.
Croatia’s utility may be smaller than Greece’s but demonstrates superior execution discipline compared to EPS. With annual investment programs exceeding €600 million, Croatia has successfully secured funding for renewable projects and grid upgrades through structured loans from European policy banks. The crucial difference lies not in size but in conversion speed—projects move rapidly from planning stages to construction without prolonged stagnation.
Romania offers another instructive example with its state power producer focusing on refurbishment and selective capacity additions instead of extensive greenfield developments. By utilizing market mechanisms like Contracts for Difference and auctions, Romania has attracted billions in private investments for new capacity, achieving system-level execution even as the state utility remains a key player without being the sole builder.
Hungary presents yet another comparative case where capital expenditure has surged due to stable policy support and long-term financing commitments. Their extensive network modernization efforts and generation investments benefit from clear funding pathways and multi-year schedules that facilitate timely project delivery.
EPS has outlined ambitious investment plans amounting to several billion euros through the decade’s end, including over €2 billion earmarked for renewables and around €1 billion for hydropower upgrades. However, these figures remain largely aspirational without corresponding signed contracts or construction milestones realized thus far. The operationalization of EPS’s initial wind and solar plants only underscores how nascent their internal execution capabilities are within the renewables sector.
The need for enhanced system flexibility is critical as well; EPS’s flagship project—the Bistrica pumped-storage hydropower plant (approximately 650 MW)—is deemed strategically vital yet remains mired in feasibility assessments and financing discussions. With cost estimates exceeding €1 billion and timelines extending into the next decade, EPS risks falling further behind as regional peers integrate flexible capacity alongside renewable deployments rather than deferring such initiatives.
In summary, EPS is indeed lagging relative to regional competitors that have transitioned from planning phases into industrialized execution models. While it can deliver large projects under specific circumstances, the current energy transition favors repeatable processes—standardized projects financed and constructed on predictable cycles rather than isolated mega-projects spread over extended periods. The challenge ahead for EPS lies not in technical ability but in institutional throughput; without a continuous stream of awarded contracts and annual renewable capacity deployments, EPS will struggle to keep pace with its more agile peers adapting swiftly to new energy market dynamics.
