Within the broader framework of the EU Clean Industrial Deal and ongoing regulatory reforms, this blackout may well be cited by European industry as evidence that excessive regulation places a burden of compliance on operators, while absolving them of accountability for the actual delivery of services
Just a week ago, it was announced that—for the first time—Spain’s power grid operated entirely on renewable energy for a full 24 hours, on 16 April. Merely days later, on 21 April, solar power alone was covering 78.6% of the country’s electricity demand at a given moment, supplying over 20,000 MW of capacity. These milestones represent the outcome of years of targeted investment and development, establishing Spain as one of Europe’s leading solar energy producers.
And yet, on 28 April, a significant portion of the Iberian power system was brought to a standstill by a major blackout. Power was largely restored by the following morning, after a night marked by outages and a state of emergency introduced to preserve basic public order. Solar generation resumed at sunrise, playing a vital role in stabilising the grid.
Although it is too soon to determine the exact cause of the outage, the incident has already served as both a stress test and a revealing diagnostic of previously undetected vulnerabilities. Crucially, it has demonstrated the strategic structural importance of hydropower in maintaining system stability in grids with a high penetration of wind and solar. It also highlights the limitations of conventional thermal power plants, which often lack the operational flexibility required to meet today’s challenges. Furthermore, the event underscores how even demand-side solar PV—installed by residential or commercial prosumers—can affect grid dynamics in ways that complicate system recovery, particularly during nighttime outages.
This incident could initiate significant discussions around the need for innovative grid-connection solutions for utility-scale intermittent renewables. It also exposes the limitations of existing solidarity mechanisms within the European energy framework and prompts questions concerning the adequacy of pan-European contingency planning.
Moreover, the blackout should prompt every European jurisdiction to reassess the risks of overreliance on imported energy—whether electricity or fuels—from neighbouring states. It is becoming increasingly clear that purely commercial investments are insufficient to deliver the standardisation and reliability required for critical infrastructure, including public transport, telecommunications, healthcare, street lighting, and water supply.
This is not the first such blackout, and it will not be the last. Future incidents may result in even greater socio-economic disruption. As such, the event must be considered in light of the 2024 ENTSO-E European Resource Adequacy Assessment (ERAA2024), which, despite its optimistic tone, acknowledges serious structural shortcomings.
Within the context of the EU Clean Industrial Deal and ongoing regulatory changes, this blackout may well be held up by European industry as further evidence that regulation often prioritises compliance over accountability.
If the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) were to apply to electricity trade between the Western Balkans and the EU, it could complicate transactions, deter investments in new generation capacity in the Balkans, and deprive Europe of much-needed hydropower that could help prevent future blackouts
For example, if the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) were to apply to electricity trade between the Western Balkans and the EU, it could create additional complications, disincentivise investment in new generation capacity in the Balkans, and deprive Europe of essential hydropower that could prevent future blackouts.
In this context, Serbia is uniquely positioned to re-evaluate its energy policy priorities. Chief among these must be the assurance of domestic energy security—anchored in national resources, robust technical standards, enhanced productivity, and the expertise of Serbian professionals. A large-scale investment programme is necessary to transform existing supply structures. Ideally, such a programme would be aligned with the EU Clean Industrial Deal. A key outcome should be the evolution of Serbia’s hydropower potential from a domestic safeguard into a strategic asset for European energy security.
At the same time, this situation presents an opportunity for the Western Balkans to become active contributors to Europe’s evolving energy architecture, rather than remaining passive beneficiaries. By investing in the decarbonisation of heat and power, as well as in cross-border coordination, the region can emerge as a strategic partner in securing the continent’s energy future. Alignment with European green standards—adapted to regional realities—could serve as both a development driver and a confidence-building measure. Mutual recognition of carbon allowances will facilitate integration into the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), thereby avoiding application of the CBAM Regulation under Article 2(6), in line with the intended regulatory evolution.
Energy cooperation—if grounded in mutual respect and technical integrity—has the potential to become a cornerstone of regional stability and diplomatic trust.
A forward-looking strategy, based on cooperation with European industry, contribution to continental energy resilience, and accelerated domestic industrial development, could serve as the foundation of a rational and mutually beneficial partnership with the EU.
Following European policy prescriptions blindly—without innovation, ambition, or responsibility—is no longer sufficient. Nor is the outsourcing of national energy security to external gas suppliers or transit countries. Only a resilient, autonomous, and well-integrated energy system can provide a sustainable path forward. A bold investment programme is, therefore, not merely desirable but essential—while ambitious, capable industrial partners are not only welcome but urgently needed.
