Regression Models Meet Foundation Models: A Hybrid-AI Approach to Practical Electricity Price Forecasting

Foundation models promise accurate forecasts with little or no task-specific training, but whether they can replace models designed specifically for electricity price forecasting remains unclear. We compare nine variants from five foundation model families, evaluated in zero-shot mode, with two state-of-the-art electricity price forecasting benchmarks in Germany, Poland, and Spain over 2021-2025. Their performance is assessed in terms of point and probabilistic forecasting accuracy, as well as economic value in battery energy storage arbitrage. Only the TabPFN models consistently and significantly outperform the benchmarks across all three markets and all statistical measures. However, this statistical dominance does not translate directly into economic dominance: TabPFN performs best under unlimited bids and riskier quantile-based strategies, whereas the Distributional Deep Neural Network benchmark is more profitable when risk tolerance is lower. Thus, foundation models cannot universally replace market-specific models, and their value depends on both model architecture and the decision problem.

Time series foundation models (TSFMs) have shown strong zero-shot forecasting performance, but their generalization in covariate-driven, non-stationary settings is underexplored. Electricity price forecasting (EPF) presents a challenging testbed due to complex temporal dependencies, distributional shifts, and strong reliance on structural and contextual information. We propose a two-dataset-benchmarking framework for EPF to mitigate contamination risk and enable fair evaluation of TSFMs. We examine key aspects of EPF including point and probabilistic forecasting performance, tail behavior, price spikes, and comparisons against domain-specific methods. We find that TSFMs are highly competitive and often outperform general-purpose baselines. Yet, their performance depends critically on covariate support, and they do not consistently surpass domain-specific methods tailored to EPF. Interestingly, simple ensembles of TSFMs and domain-specific methods appear to have significant potential, suggesting that the two approaches capture complementary predictive information.

Large-scale renewable energy deployment introduces pronounced volatility into the electricity system, turning grid operation into a complex stochastic optimization problem. Accurate electricity price forecasting (EPF) is essential not only to support operational decisions, such as optimal bidding strategies and balancing power preparation, but also to reduce economic risk and improve market efficiency. Probabilistic forecasts are particularly valuable because they quantify uncertainty stemming from renewable intermittency, market coupling, and regulatory changes, enabling market participants to make informed decisions that minimize losses and optimize expected revenues. However, it remains an open question which models to employ to produce accurate forecasts. Should these be task-specific machine learning (ML) models or Time Series Foundation Models (TSFMs)? In this work, we compare four models for day-ahead probabilistic EPF (PEPF) in European bidding zones: a deterministic NHITS backbone with Quantile-Regression Averaging (NHITS+QRA) and a conditional Normalizing-Flow forecaster (NF) are compared with two TSFMs, namely Moirai and ChronosX. On the one hand, we find that TSFMs outperform task-specific deep learning models trained from scratch in terms of CRPS, Energy Score, and predictive interval calibration across market conditions. On the other hand, we find that well-configured task-specific models, particularly NHITS combined with QRA, achieve performance very close to TSFMs, and in some scenarios, such as when supplied with additional informative feature groups or adapted via few-shot learning from other European markets, they can even surpass TSFMs. Overall, our findings show that while TSFMs offer expressive modeling capabilities, conventional models remain highly competitive, emphasizing the need to weigh computational expense against marginal performance improvements in PEPF.