By the end of 2025, South-East Europe saw a sharp rise in intraday electricity trading volumes, reaching levels that would have appeared unattainable only a few years earlier. Record activity was reported across Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Serbia. Market operators and policymakers pointed to the growth as evidence of functional maturity in regional power markets. Risk managers and industrial buyers reported a different outcome for longer-horizon exposure.
Operational liquidity versus risk-bearing capacity
The increase in intraday activity reflected a role focused on short-term balancing rather than long-term risk coverage. Intraday markets are used to manage imbalances by allowing participants to adjust positions as forecasts change, renewable output varies, or outages occur. In 2025, these markets were described as performing this function effectively. Monthly intraday volumes were reported above 600 GWh on IBEX, above 1 TWh on HUPX, and at record highs on SEEPEX.
Alongside volume growth, balancing costs were reported to fall and real-time system stability to improve. However, the same developments did not change exposure to price volatility over multi-month and multi-year periods for industrial buyers and utilities. Intraday liquidity was described as not accumulating open interest because positions are opened and closed within hours. After delivery ends, the market resets, meaning hedging effects do not persist beyond the delivery period.
Structural stress shows limits of intraday price control
In 2025, the separation between operational performance and longer-term risk became more visible during structural stress events. When hydro output dropped sharply in parts of the Balkans, or when thermal units tripped unexpectedly, intraday markets responded efficiently. Prices still adjusted sharply during these episodes. Participants were able to rebalance volumes, but price shocks moved forward through expectations.
That forward propagation was reported to widen forward spreads and increase basis volatility. The intraday market absorbed operational shocks while amplifying informational ones. As a result, volatility was compressed into shorter windows rather than reduced across longer horizons. Participants saw more frequent price spikes and dips without a corresponding reduction in their magnitude over timeframes relevant to longer-term exposures.
Impact on industrial consumers and utilities
For industrial consumers, the reported effect was measurable even when intraday optimisation was actively used. Facilities that optimised intraday positions still faced annual cost deviations of ±10 €/MWh versus budgeted hedge levels. For a 40 MW consumer, this translated into variance of ±3.5 million €. The source described that intraday optimisation reduced imbalance penalties but did not stabilise average power costs.
Utilities faced a similar pattern in which improved intraday activity lowered balancing costs and forecast error losses. Forward margins remained volatile despite those improvements. Earnings sensitivity to weather conditions and cross-border congestion continued to affect outcomes. The forward curve was described as moving independently of intraday conditions, driven by macro-level supply expectations rather than real-time liquidity.
Reframing intraday markets by late 2025
By late 2025, some participants were reported to treat intraday markets primarily as tools for operational shock absorption rather than financial risk management over longer horizons. They recognised that intraday liquidity can improve efficiency and reduce system stress but does not replace deep forward markets. The ability to lock in prices months or years ahead with minimal basis risk was identified as a missing element for long-term exposure management.
The distinction between trading speed and the duration for holding risk was highlighted as central to how market maturity is assessed. In South-East Europe, intraday liquidity was described as having matured rapidly while long-term risk absorption did not keep pace. Confusing these two aspects was said to contribute to overconfidence in hedging strategies and underestimation of residual exposure. The 2025 experience was described as prompting a separation between operational execution and financial resilience.
Elevated by virtu.energy