Energy Traders Europe’s 2025 Gas Hub Scorecard assesses 18 emerging European gas hubs from a trader’s perspective, focusing on whether markets support price discovery, competition, balancing and cross-border trading. The scoring framework covers institutional and regulatory criteria as well as operational design and performance indicators including standardised contracts, brokers, exchanges, market makers and hub liquidity. It also evaluates whether hub prices are reliable enough to function as benchmarks. The total score is out of 20 points, with markets scoring 15 or more generally treated as relatively mature.
The report says Europe’s gas-market development shows a north-east versus south-east divide. It links stronger hubs to deeper liquidity, improved price formation and more credible trading conditions. It also points to constraints in several eastern and south-eastern markets, including weak transparency, limited market-based balancing, administrative barriers and the role of incumbent structures.
Top-performing hubs and the emerging regional divide
The scorecard identifies the Baltic states, Finland, Ireland, Greece and Hungary as the strongest performers among the emerging hubs. Lithuania and Ireland are listed at 14.5 points, while Estonia, Finland, Greece, Latvia and Hungary are described as close behind. The report says several eastern and Balkan markets remain materially weaker. Serbia is highlighted as the lowest-scoring case in the appendix.
The appendix assigns Serbia only 3.5 out of 20, the lowest score among the assessed markets. The report frames this as a major gap in market-liquidity development rather than a narrow compliance issue. It argues that a weak hub affects industrial buyers, power generators and balancing-cost expectations alongside cross-border risk premiums. It also cites implications for LNG optionality, storage economics and the bankability of gas-to-power or industrial decarbonisation projects.
What the scorecard measures for hub functionality
The scorecard evaluates whether a hub can operate as an economic instrument through specific market-design elements. Its criteria include transparency and consultation processes, entry-exit system establishment, title transfer mechanics and cashout rules. It also covers TSO system balancing, licensing and reporting obligations, market interference and measures addressing structural or concentration issues. Additional categories include NRA or hub fees.
For benchmarking functions, the framework includes whether a reference hub price exists for contractual settlement and whether hub benchmark reliability is supported by spot liquidity. It also assesses standardised contracts plus daily price reporting agencies, market makers and brokers. The report’s operational focus extends to exchange establishment as well as spot liquidity used to support trading depth.
Serbia’s detailed scoring gaps across market-design categories
Serbia receives 0.5 for transparency and consultation in the appendix. It is also scored 0.5 for entry-exit system establishment, 0.5 for title transfer and 0.5 for cashout rules. For TSO system balancing it receives 0, alongside 0 for licensing and reporting obligations.
The appendix assigns Serbia 0 for market interference and 0 for resolving structural and concentration issues. It receives 0.5 for NRA or hub fees but scores 0 for establishing a reference hub price for contractual settlement. The same appendix lists 0 for standardised contracts, daily price reporting agencies, market makers and brokers.
The appendix further records 0 for exchange establishment, hub benchmark reliability and spot liquidity for Serbia . It also places Serbia within a declining or stagnating eastern European cluster described by weak performance across several market-design categories . The report links these gaps to limited features needed for a hub to support hedging and forward pricing.
Implications for industry hedging and project finance modelling
The report says that where transparent hub prices do not exist and where brokers and market makers are thin, energy buyers cannot hedge easily while lenders cannot model forward exposure with confidence. It adds that investors face higher uncertainty around fuel costs when balancing is not fully market-based. It describes these conditions as affecting industrial procurement decisions across multiple sectors.
The commercial consequence described is a higher energy-risk premium for Serbian industry tied to fuel-price visibility needs in fertilisers, chemicals, district heating, power generation, food processing, metals and building materials. If transparent prices and liquid hedging instruments are not available, companies face more volatile budgeting and weaker negotiating leverage against suppliers . For projects seeking project finance, the report says lenders may apply conservative fuel-price assumptions or require stronger sponsor support when gas input exposure cannot be hedged credibly .
Baltics, Finland and Greece cited as reform pathways; Romania, Hungary highlighted on setbacks
The scorecard says progress has been possible where reforms are consistent in parts of Europe. It describes the Baltic states and Finland as moving close to maturity despite starting liberalisation later than many older EU markets . Their improvement is linked to clearer market rules, stronger transparency, effective balancing and constructive engagement between authorities and traders.
The report also describes Greece as overtaking Hungary as the best-performing gas hub in south-eastern Europe. It attributes this to enabling pure trading activity and attracting price reporting agencies while noting that the Greek gas exchange was established later than those in several other EU countries . Hungary is described as having declined from earlier top-performer status due to weaker transparency, shorter consultation windows and limited use of English in market dialogue .
Romania is said to have improved some performance indicators including greater use of standardised contracts and BRM integration with Trayport . However it remains held back by windfall taxation and uncertainty over licensing . Bulgaria and Moldova are described as making modest progress while the report warns about potential fragmentation effects from a specific capacity product on the Trans-Balkan route.
Trans-Balkan “Route 1” capacity product flagged over liquidity fragmentation risk
The report warns that the “Route 1” point-to-point capacity product on the Trans-Balkan route may fragment regional liquidity by allowing transactions to bypass national markets in Bulgaria, Romania and Moldova . It frames this concern within its broader assessment of how operational design can affect cross-border trading conditions.
The scorecard’s wider recommendation is presented as relevant for Serbia and the Western Balkans through changes aimed at improving transparency, stakeholder engagement and balancing arrangements . Energy Traders Europe argues that national authorities should use open consultations preferably in English, prioritise market-based balancing, reduce burdensome licensing and reporting barriers, address incumbent dominance and avoid wholesale interventions that distort price formation . The report presents these steps as minimum institutional conditions needed to convert a gas network into a functioning gas market .
A reform agenda focused on virtual trading points, access rules and data publication
The report says Serbia’s reform agenda would need to start with fundamentals including a clearer virtual trading point structure. It calls for non-discriminatory access to network capacity along with transparent balancing rules and visible market-based imbalance settlement . It also lists standardised contracts alongside a simpler licensing environment and stronger publication of market data . The emergence of a price reference is described as especially important because without it the market remains dependent on external benchmarks rather than generating its own domestic signal .
The regional context described places Serbia between increasingly interconnected electricity and gas corridors shaped by Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia in terms of import options and price exposure . LNG access through Greece and Croatia is cited alongside interconnection with Bulgaria plus future regional gas flows . The changing role of Russian pipeline supply is also referenced as increasing the value of market flexibility , while infrastructure alone is said not to create liquidity if market rules remain opaque or administratively constrained .
Power-system linkages: coal exposure remains; gas hub weakness raises transition costs
The report adds an electricity-market angle tied to Serbia’s energy mix. It says Serbia’s electricity system remains heavily exposed to coal but that gas can play an increasing role in balancing, industrial heat, district energy and potentially future flexible generation . It links weak gas-hub conditions to higher transition costs because they reduce the ability to price gas flexibly against power prices along with carbon signals renewables output profiles and storage-related needs .
The scorecard connects gas-market opacity with competitiveness concerns in an energy system shaped by renewables alongside CBAM exposure, power-market volatility and cross-border price spreads . It also states that regional stagnation in gas-hub development comes mainly from weak institutional regulatory and operational progress rather than lack of engagement by traders suppliers or industrial consumers . In this framing those participants are described as constrained by an operating environment that does not yet provide sufficient confidence.
Status within the table: 3.5/20 placed at bottom; reform pathway described elsewhere in Europe
The report reiterates that Serbia’s score of 3.5/20 places it at the bottom of the assessed European hub-development table while describing reform pathways elsewhere as visible through Baltic states’ experience alongside Greece’s improvements . It says later-stage liberalisation can still produce rapid improvement when authorities TSOs and traders align around transparent rules open consultation processes and credible market infrastructure . The document frames its next-stage focus on moving beyond compliance-only approaches toward building conditions that support industrial competitiveness through functioning hub pricing architecture.
A functioning Serbian gas hub is described within the report as potentially reducing energy-risk premiums improving procurement options for industrial consumers strengthening investment cases for flexible energy assets supporting regional trading activities and giving banks clearer bases for financing gas-dependent or transition-related infrastructure . The report characterises physical interconnection plus formal market opening as insufficient without transparent rules liquid instruments credible balancing accessible licensing price reporting mechanisms plus a reference price counterparties can use effectively until those conditions improve .
