Energy Traders Europe’s 2025 Gas Hub Scorecard assesses 18 emerging European gas hubs from a trader perspective. The evaluation considers whether markets support price discovery, competition, balancing and cross-border trading. It also examines institutional and regulatory criteria alongside operational design and performance indicators.
The scoring framework covers areas including standardised contracts, brokers, exchanges and market makers. It also includes hub liquidity and whether the hub price is reliable enough to function as a benchmark. The total score is out of 20 points, with markets scoring 15 or more generally treated as relatively mature.
North-east versus south-east divide in emerging gas hub development
The report highlights a north-east versus south-east divide in European gas-market development. It says the strongest hubs are moving toward deeper liquidity, improved price formation and more credible trading conditions. Several eastern and south-eastern markets are described as remaining constrained by weak transparency, limited market-based balancing, administrative barriers and incumbent structures.
The Baltic states, Finland, Ireland, Greece and Hungary are assessed as the strongest performers among the emerging hubs. The scorecard places Lithuania and Ireland at 14.5 points. Estonia, Finland, Greece, Latvia and Hungary are listed close behind, while several eastern and Balkan markets are described as materially weaker.
Serbia at the bottom of the hub-development table
Serbia is identified as the most striking case in the assessment. The appendix gives Serbia only 3.5 out of 20, the lowest score among the evaluated markets. The report places Serbia in a declining or stagnating cluster for eastern Europe.
According to the appendix, Serbia receives 0.5 for transparency and consultation, entry-exit system establishment, title transfer and cashout rules. It receives 0 for TSO system balancing, licensing and reporting obligations, market interference and resolving structural and concentration issues. It also receives 0.5 for NRA or hub fees.
The same appendix assigns Serbia 0 for establishing a reference hub price for contractual settlement. It also gives Serbia 0 for standardised contracts, daily price reporting agencies, market makers, brokers, exchange establishment, hub benchmark reliability and spot liquidity. The scorecard therefore links Serbia’s low ranking to multiple categories affecting how a hub functions in practice.
Implications for hedging, financing and industrial fuel-price visibility
The report says a weak gas hub affects more than wholesale trading activity. It points to impacts on industrial buyers and power generators through balancing-cost expectations and cross-border risk premiums. It also cites effects on LNG optionality, storage economics and the bankability of gas-to-power or industrial decarbonisation projects.
In markets where a transparent hub price does not exist and where brokers and market makers are thin, energy buyers cannot hedge easily. The report adds that lenders cannot model forward exposure as readily, while investors face higher uncertainty around fuel costs. It frames these issues as connected to whether balancing is fully market-based.
The commercial consequence described is a higher energy-risk premium for Serbian industry. Large consumers listed include fertilisers, chemicals, district heating, power generation, food processing, metals and building materials. The report says fuel-price visibility depends on transparent prices and liquid hedging instruments.
For projects seeking project finance, the report describes this as a modelling issue tied to lenders’ assumptions about fuel prices. It says lenders may apply conservative fuel-price assumptions or require stronger sponsor support when gas input exposure cannot be hedged credibly. It also notes that projects may be discounted under those conditions.
Reform conditions cited for Serbia and Western Balkans gas markets
The scorecard’s wider recommendations are presented as relevant to Serbia and the Western Balkans. Energy Traders Europe argues that national authorities should improve transparency and stakeholder engagement. It also calls for open consultations preferably in English.
The report says authorities should prioritise market-based balancing while reducing burdensome licensing and reporting barriers. It also references addressing incumbent dominance and avoiding wholesale market interventions that distort price formation. These measures are described as minimum institutional conditions needed to convert a gas network into a functioning gas market.
For Serbia specifically, the reform agenda is described as starting with fundamentals including a clearer virtual trading point structure. The report also cites non-discriminatory access to network capacity, transparent balancing rules and visible market-based imbalance settlement. It adds that standardised contracts, a simpler licensing environment and stronger publication of market data are needed.
The emergence of a price reference is highlighted as especially important in the assessment framework. Without a credible Serbian gas hub price, the report says the market remains dependent on external benchmarks and bilateral import terms rather than producing a domestic signal for pricing settlement.
Regional interconnection context alongside power-market exposure
The report links Serbia’s situation to its position between electricity and gas corridors shaped by regional interconnections. It lists Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia as shaping import options and price exposure for Serbia’s gas supply outlook. It also cites LNG access through Greece and Croatia alongside interconnection with Bulgaria.
The assessment notes that future regional gas flows and changes in Russian pipeline supply increase the value of market flexibility. However, it states that infrastructure alone does not create liquidity when market rules remain opaque or administratively constrained. In that context it describes limits on any trading premium despite physical connectivity.
A power-market angle is also included in the assessment narrative around Serbia’s electricity system exposure to coal. The report says gas can play an increasing role in balancing, industrial heat, district energy and potentially future flexible generation. It adds that weak gas-hub conditions raise costs for that transition by limiting flexible pricing against power signals.
Market engagement continues despite stalled hub development progress
The scorecard indicates that market participants remain interested even where markets are imperfect. It attributes stagnation in regional gas hub development mainly to weak institutional, regulatory and operational progress rather than lack of engagement by traders or suppliers. It distinguishes between continued participation constraints tied to confidence in operating environments.
The report frames Serbia’s position using its 3.5/20 score as placing it at the bottom of the assessed European hub-development table. It also points to reform progress elsewhere by citing Baltic states moving close to maturity alongside Finland despite later liberalisation starts than many older EU markets.
The assessment connects improvement in those markets with clearer market rules, stronger transparency, effective balancing and engagement between authorities and traders. It also describes Greece as overtaking Hungary as the best-performing gas hub in south-eastern Europe due to enabling pure trading activity and attracting price reporting agencies after its Greek gas exchange was established later than several other EU countries .
Examples of uneven performance across neighbouring hubs
The report describes Hungary’s decline from earlier top-performer status due to weaker transparency, shorter consultation windows and limited use of English in market dialogue . For Romania it cites improvements including greater use of standardised contracts alongside BRM integration with Trayport . It says Romania remains held back by windfall taxation and uncertainty over licensing.
Bulgaria and Moldova are described as making modest progress within the same framework . The report warns that “Route 1” point-to-point capacity on the Trans-Balkan route may fragment regional liquidity by allowing transactions to bypass national markets in Bulgaria, Romania and Moldova .
