A recent analysis by the Kosovo Transmission System and Market Operator (KOSTT) has raised serious concerns regarding potential manipulation of electricity import prices into Kosovo. The report implicates Serbia’s state-owned utility, Elektroprivreda Srbije (EPS), along with the private trader Noa Energy Trade, suggesting they engaged in coordinated actions during cross-border capacity auctions in 2025. This situation calls into question the integrity of auction mechanisms that may have inflated transmission costs beyond actual electricity values.
The investigation focused on auction practices conducted by the Southeast Europe Capacity Allocation Office (SEECAO) based in Podgorica, which oversees the allocation of transmission rights for electricity transport between different jurisdictions, including imports into Kosovo. The findings indicate that EPS and Noa Energy Trade frequently collaborated in numerous auctions to acquire and resell transmission capacity designated for Kosovo, leading to perceptions of market concentration and collusion that could elevate transmission fees.
Commissioned by Kosovo’s energy regulator, the report analyzed auction activities from January to October 2025. It revealed that on many occasions, only Noa Energy Trade and EPS submitted bids for transmission lines. Given that the cost structure for electricity imports incorporates both energy prices and grid usage fees, a significant concentration of buyers can substantially influence overall import costs when these entities dominate both sides of the market.
KOSTT’s data highlighted that electricity transmission costs for imports into Kosovo reached as high as €800 per megawatt-hour in 2024, a price point deemed anomalous and indicative of distorted market behavior with weak competitive pressures. Such elevated fees persisted into 2025 during specific auctions where only these two companies were active.
The operational framework of SEECAO involves selling annual, monthly, and daily transmission rights. According to KOSTT’s findings, Noa Energy Trade acquired rights on an annual basis at relatively low prices—often just above €1 per megawatt-hour—only to resell them on daily markets at significantly higher rates. In nearly all daily auctions analyzed, EPS was identified as the sole other bidder, allowing both firms to exert influence over clearing prices.
SEECAO regulations stipulate that auctions are valid only when multiple buyers participate; however, the pattern observed in 2025 predominantly featured just these two companies. This scenario enabled potential price coordination that could have inflated the transmission costs associated with Kosovo’s electricity imports.
While KOSTT’s report does not assign legal liability at this stage, it points out that the repeated participation of Noa Energy Trade and EPS may represent a collaborative effort that escalated costs for imported electricity into Kosovo. Ongoing investigations by regulatory authorities in Kosovo are now considering these findings within a broader context of cross-border energy trading scrutiny across the region.
