A recent analysis by the Kosovo Transmission System and Market Operator (KOSTT) has raised concerns regarding potential price manipulation in the electricity import market, specifically implicating Serbia’s state-owned utility, Elektroprivreda Srbije (EPS), and private trader Noa Energy Trade. This investigation highlights possible coordinated actions during cross-border capacity auctions scheduled for 2025, suggesting that these entities may have inflated transmission costs beyond the actual value of electricity.
KOSTT’s report scrutinized the auction activities conducted by the Southeast Europe Capacity Allocation Office (SEECAO) in Podgorica, which are designed to allocate rights for using transmission lines essential for electricity imports into Kosovo. The findings indicate that Noa Energy Trade and EPS frequently collaborated in numerous auctions to acquire and resell transmission capacity intended for Kosovo, creating a scenario that suggests market concentration and joint action, potentially leading to increased transmission fees.
The investigation, commissioned by Kosovo’s energy regulator, analyzed auction behaviors from January to October 2025. It revealed a concerning trend where only two companies—Noa Energy Trade and EPS—submitted bids for transmission lines on many occasions. This concentration of buyers can significantly influence overall import costs, as both firms controlling the market dynamics could manipulate pricing structures.
KOSTT’s data indicates that electricity transmission costs for imports into Kosovo surged to €800 per megawatt-hour in 2024, a figure deemed anomalous and indicative of distorted market behavior under weak competitive pressure. The report notes that similar high fees persisted into 2025 when only these two companies participated in specific auctions.
The auction mechanism employed by SEECAO involves the sale of annual, monthly, and daily transmission rights. KOSTT suggests that Noa Energy Trade acquired rights at moderate prices—typically just above €1 per megawatt-hour—on the annual market, only to resell them at inflated prices on daily markets. In nearly all daily auctions, EPS was the sole other bidder, allowing both firms to exert influence over the final clearing price.
According to SEECAO regulations, auctions require participation from more than one buyer to be deemed valid. However, the pattern observed in 2025 predominantly featured only these two companies, facilitating potential price coordination that could elevate the transmission component of Kosovo’s electricity import bills.
While KOSTT’s report does not assign legal liability at this stage, it underscores the frequent collaboration between Noa Energy Trade and EPS as a factor that may have led to increased costs for Kosovo’s electricity imports. These findings are currently under review by Kosovo’s regulatory authorities amid broader investigations into cross-border energy trading practices within the region.
