The February 2026 report by the Council of European Energy Regulators on the decarbonisation of LNG terminals was not written with South-East Europe explicitly in mind. It is a pan-European regulatory and technical assessment, designed to guide national regulators and terminal operators across the EU as LNG infrastructure is progressively adapted to a lower-carbon energy system. Yet, read carefully, the report carries important implications for South-East Europe, particularly for countries whose gas security, price stability, and industrial competitiveness increasingly depend on a small number of LNG gateways located at the region’s periphery.
South-East Europe remains structurally different from north-west European gas markets. Pipeline density is lower, storage depth is thinner, and domestic production is marginal in most jurisdictions. LNG terminals in neighbouring EU member states therefore play an outsized role in shaping regional gas availability, balancing flexibility, and future decarbonisation pathways. The CEER report, while not region-specific, provides a clear framework for understanding how those terminals may evolve and what that evolution means for South-East Europe between now and the mid-2030s.
At the core of the CEER analysis is a recognition that LNG terminals are no longer single-purpose fossil infrastructure. Regulators increasingly expect them to become multi-molecule assets capable of handling liquefied natural gas alongside low-carbon and carbon-neutral vectors such as biomethane derivatives, synthetic methane, liquefied hydrogen, ammonia, and, in some cases, captured carbon dioxide for export. This reframing has direct consequences for South-East Europe because the region’s LNG access points are limited in number but strategically located along EU energy corridors.
Two gateways dominate the South-East European LNG landscape. The first is the Croatian terminal on Krk Island in the northern Adriatic. The second is the Greek LNG system centred on Revythoussa near Athens, complemented by emerging floating and onshore projects along the Greek coast. Although the CEER report does not single out either terminal for case-study treatment, both fall squarely within the regulatory perimeter it defines.
The Croatian terminal on Krk has, since its commissioning, evolved from a national diversification project into a regional balancing asset. Its regasification capacity, expanded to approximately 6 bcm per year, allows it to supply not only Croatia but also Hungary, Slovenia, and indirectly parts of the Western Balkans through interconnected systems. In the CEER framework, terminals of this type are expected to progressively reduce their direct emissions footprint through electrification of auxiliary systems, optimisation of boil-off gas management, and integration with renewable electricity. More importantly for South-East Europe, the report positions such terminals as candidates for future synthetic methane imports, which could preserve existing pipeline and industrial end-use compatibility while lowering lifecycle emissions.
For South-East European countries that rely on Croatian gas flows to stabilise winter supply or to hedge against pipeline disruptions, this matters because decarbonised LNG does not imply reduced availability. On the contrary, CEER’s regulatory logic assumes that LNG terminals will remain critical security-of-supply assets well into the 2030s, even as their carbon intensity declines. This challenges the lingering assumption in parts of the region that decarbonisation inevitably equates to gas scarcity or infrastructure stranding.
The Greek LNG system carries even broader regional significance. Revythoussa has long functioned as a southern gateway feeding Greece and, via interconnectors, Bulgaria and other neighbouring systems. The CEER report’s project inventory references initiatives associated with Greek LNG infrastructure that go beyond gas import. One of the most notable is a carbon dioxide logistics concept linked to the Revythoussa site, commonly referred to as ApolloCO₂, which envisages the collection, liquefaction, and maritime export of captured CO₂ from industrial sources across South-Eastern Europe.
This is not a peripheral detail. For South-East Europe, where heavy industry, cement, refining, and power generation remain carbon-intensive and where domestic CO₂ storage options are limited or politically sensitive, access to maritime CO₂ export routes may become a decisive factor in maintaining industrial operations under tightening EU climate policy. The CEER report implicitly acknowledges that LNG terminals, because of their cryogenic expertise and port integration, are among the few existing assets capable of supporting such CO₂ value chains at scale.
Equally important is the report’s treatment of hydrogen and hydrogen carriers. CEER stops short of declaring LNG terminals as default hydrogen hubs, but it clearly recognises ammonia and liquefied hydrogen imports as plausible long-term adaptations, particularly at sites with deep-water access and strong grid connections. Greece, positioned at the crossroads of Mediterranean shipping routes and Balkan energy corridors, emerges implicitly as a candidate gateway for low-carbon molecules entering South-East Europe from the Middle East, North Africa, or global markets.
For South-East European energy systems, this creates a layered future. In the near to medium term, LNG terminals continue to supply natural gas, increasingly with lower operational emissions and potentially blended with synthetic components. In the longer term, the same terminals may anchor regional hydrogen supply chains, with downstream implications for steelmaking, fertilisers, refining, and dispatchable power generation. The CEER report’s emphasis on regulatory neutrality between molecules reinforces the idea that infrastructure optionality, rather than single-fuel optimisation, will be the guiding principle.
A critical element of the report for South-East Europe lies in its regulatory messaging. CEER stresses that national regulators should avoid creating barriers to terminal adaptation by locking assets into narrow tariff or licensing regimes. This is particularly relevant in South-East Europe, where regulatory frameworks are often conservative and focused on cost containment rather than system transformation. If LNG terminals serving the region are to invest in electrification, hydrogen readiness, or CO₂ handling, predictable regulatory cost recovery mechanisms will be essential.
From a market perspective, the report also reinforces the role of LNG terminals in price formation and volatility management. South-East European gas markets are typically smaller and more exposed to external shocks. LNG import flexibility, especially when combined with short-term capacity products and transparent access rules, has already contributed to dampening extreme price spikes in recent years. CEER’s endorsement of LNG terminals as long-term system assets suggests that this stabilising function will persist, even as decarbonisation advances.
What the report does not do is prescribe a single pathway for South-East Europe. Instead, it outlines a menu of technological and regulatory options that regional actors can align with their specific constraints. For Western Balkan countries aspiring to deeper EU market integration, the message is clear: access to decarbonised LNG and derivative molecules will increasingly depend on alignment with EU regulatory standards governing emissions accounting, infrastructure interoperability, and market transparency.
For industrial stakeholders, particularly exporters exposed to EU carbon pricing and CBAM-related pressures, the implications are equally concrete. LNG terminals that evolve into multi-molecule hubs can underpin credible decarbonisation narratives for gas-based industrial processes, provided that lifecycle emissions are demonstrably reduced and verifiable. The CEER report implicitly places LNG infrastructure within the broader compliance ecosystem, rather than treating it as a transitional afterthought.
In sum, while the CEER report on LNG terminal decarbonisation is not a South-East Europe strategy document, its conclusions resonate strongly across the region. The limited number of LNG gateways serving South-East Europe magnifies the importance of each regulatory and investment decision affecting those assets. Decarbonisation, as framed by CEER, does not diminish the strategic value of LNG terminals. It reshapes it.
For South-East Europe, this reshaping offers both risk and opportunity. The risk lies in regulatory inertia and delayed alignment, which could marginalise the region in emerging low-carbon gas and molecule markets. The opportunity lies in leveraging existing LNG gateways to secure cleaner energy supplies, industrial resilience, and integration into future hydrogen and CO₂ value chains. The CEER report provides the regulatory logic. The regional challenge is to translate that logic into timely infrastructure, market, and policy action.
