Elektroprivreda Srbije (EPS) faces increasing challenges in keeping pace with regional competitors in the energy sector. While the company has articulated ambitious plans for renewable energy and infrastructure development, its actual execution speed and project delivery have not matched those of neighboring utilities. This disparity is particularly evident in the areas of renewable energy investments and grid enhancements, where EPS is still transitioning from planning phases to operational projects.
A notable achievement for EPS is the commissioning of the 350 MW Kostolac B3 lignite unit at the end of 2024. This project demonstrates EPS’s capability to execute large-scale developments when there is political backing and contractual clarity. However, this project also highlights a structural issue: it took approximately seven years to complete and does not address the urgent need for flexible low-carbon capacity or rapid project delivery, which are essential for competitiveness in the upcoming 2026–2030 period.
In terms of renewable energy, EPS has only recently begun to make strides. The company connected its first wind farm, Kostolac (66 MW), to the grid in late 2025, alongside its first utility-scale solar plant, Petka (around 10 MW). While these projects mark important milestones for EPS, they are relatively small compared to the scale of projects being undertaken by other regional utilities.
In contrast, utilities in Greece have made significant advancements by positioning themselves as leaders in renewable energy. The Greek public power utility has committed over €10 billion in capital expenditure over three years, aiming to add multiple gigawatts of new renewable capacity. This initiative reflects a structured approach to investment that includes ongoing engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contracts and financing strategies.
Croatia’s power utility, although smaller than Greece’s, exhibits a stronger execution discipline than EPS. Its annual investment programs regularly surpass €600 million, with renewable projects and grid upgrades achieving financial closure through structured loans from European policy banks. The key difference lies in the speed of project conversion from planning to construction phases.
Romania offers a different perspective; its main state power producer relies on hydroelectric power, resulting in a focus on refurbishment rather than extensive new builds. Romania has effectively utilized market mechanisms such as Contracts for Difference and auctions to attract billions in private investment for new capacity. This strategy allows for significant system-level execution without placing the entire burden on the state utility.
Hungary’s integrated state utility serves as another benchmark with its recent surge in capital expenditures backed by stable policies and long-term financing arrangements. Investments in network modernization and generation are supported by clear funding channels and multi-year delivery schedules, showcasing a commitment to visible investment cycles.
While EPS has outlined plans for several billion euros in investments through 2030—including over €2 billion earmarked for renewables—these figures remain largely aspirational without corresponding contracts or construction milestones. The fact that EPS’s first wind and solar plants only became operational in 2025 emphasizes the company’s slow progress in establishing an effective renewables execution framework.
The urgency of developing system flexibility is paramount as it enables large-scale integration of renewables. EPS’s flagship flexibility initiative, the Bistrica pumped-storage hydropower plant (approximately 650 MW), is recognized as critical but remains mired in feasibility studies and permitting processes. With cost estimates exceeding €1 billion and construction timelines extending into the next decade, EPS risks falling further behind as regional counterparts integrate flexible solutions alongside their renewable deployments.
In conclusion, EPS is indeed lagging relative to its regional peers that have transitioned from planning stages to industrialized execution models. While EPS has proven capable of delivering large projects under certain conditions, the energy transition demands consistent execution across multiple standardized projects rather than isolated achievements spread over extended periods. The challenge lies not in technical ability but in institutional efficiency; until EPS can establish a continuous pipeline of awarded contracts and regular commissioning of new capacity, it will struggle to keep up with competitors who have adapted their operational strategies to meet the demands of the evolving energy landscape.
