Kujtim Dobruna
“Would you like some coal, sir?” Who doesn’t remember this story by Migjeni, portraying the honest yet naive simplicity of a mountain woman facing the cynical city dwellers. Every time I think about Kosovo’s coal and our energy projects, I cannot help but recall this kind, harmless woman trying to sell coal to make a living—only to be met with contempt, irony, and manipulation. In the end, she keeps her dignity but fails to sell the coal.
The same applies to us, as we mark 20 years of planning, tendering, and broken promises. This is the short summary of Kosovo’s attempt to build new energy capacities—from the idea of the “Kosova C” power plant to the Zhur hydropower project. Two decades later, the country remains dependent on old, polluting plants, with no serious new generation source in sight. The liberalization of the energy market for large consumers, launched on June 1, brought the issue back to attention—but as usual, the public debate remained superficial, fragmented, and short-lived.
In the absence of strategic vision, public discourse continues to be dominated by mutual accusations and a political culture that only reacts in crisis. But unlike other sectors, the failure in the energy sector also reflects the shortcomings of international reformers, renowned consultants, and multilateral institutions that have alternately supported and hindered our strategic energy projects.
A History of Failures
In 2005, the “Kosova C” plan was launched, envisioning a 2,100 MW thermal power plant. Inherited from Yugoslav industrial plans, it received strong backing from the EU, USA, and World Bank. Major investors from Germany, the Czech Republic, Greece, and the US showed concrete interest. But in 2009, everything changed: international support was withdrawn, the recommended capacity was reduced to 600 MW, and the tender required the rehabilitation of Kosovo B and the decommissioning of Kosovo A. This led to the withdrawal of foreign investors, while international financial institutions lost interest in funding the project due to a strategic shift toward renewables.
In 2013, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on Kosovo’s EU integration, calling for financial aid to be directed only to renewable energy projects and for the closure of existing coal power plants, as they conflicted with EU climate targets. Since 2005, the project was also accompanied by intensive media campaigns from various interest groups that never represented Kosovo’s energy interests, but those of external actors—without offering realistic alternatives for a country still dependent on coal for over 90% of its electricity.
The final hope for “Kosova e Re” ended with the withdrawal of the US company ContourGlobal, which cost Kosovo €20 million in arbitration. Opponents of the scaled-down 500 MW project argued that the guaranteed purchase price of €80/MWh and other required guarantees could jeopardize budgetary sustainability and potentially bankrupt the country. ContourGlobal’s withdrawal followed these objections, as well as the World Bank’s and EBRD’s subsequent withdrawal from the project.
Meanwhile, the Zhur hydropower plant—where all necessary studies had been completed and which was found to be feasible with a 305 MW capacity—quietly disappeared from new strategies and planning documents.
A New Taxonomy in the EU
Russia’s aggression in Ukraine exposed Europe’s energy shortsightedness and risky dependence on Russian imports. Faced with its worst energy crisis in decades, the EU changed course. With the REPowerEU plan, gas and nuclear were labeled “green” under the EU’s financial taxonomy. Meanwhile, coal was no longer seen as regression, but as a strategic necessity—providing immediate, controllable energy in the absence of ready alternatives.
According to the *Financial Times*, at least four countries—Germany, the Netherlands, Greece, and the Czech Republic—allowed increased coal generation from 2022 onward. In 2023 alone, over a quarter of Germany’s electricity came from coal, while Poland exceeded 50%. In the region, reliance is even higher: Serbia and Bosnia generate over 60% of electricity from coal, North Macedonia over 50%. All three are connected to international gas networks, and Serbia continues to benefit from cheap Russian supplies. Kosovo is not. It remains dependent on outdated coal plants that continuously pollute air, water, and soil—directly impacting the health of over half a million citizens.
With no quick solution and EU integration still distant, building a new coal-fired power plant using modern technology remains the only path to energy security, pollution reduction, and economic stability. Burning coal is not the solution of the future—but right now, it is the bridge to get there.
What Needs to Be Done?
While international investment in a new coal plant is unlikely, a sustainable solution may lie in cooperation with Albania. As a first step, generation must be unified. The two countries already operate as an integrated energy block, connected through the 400 kV line and the ALPEX joint exchange. This integration allows for larger investments, real-time balancing, grid stability, an acceptable generation mix, and significant savings.
In this context, Kosovo and Albania could co-invest in several projects. First, a modern 500 MW coal power plant to replace Kosovo A and ensure base-load supply with lower emissions. Then, a natural gas power plant to add flexibility for seasonal shortages in renewables. Further, joint investments in battery storage systems would strengthen grid resilience, while completing the 305 MW Zhur hydropower plant and launching new solar projects would expand the renewable portfolio.
Later, both countries should seriously consider developing a joint nuclear power plant—a bold but necessary step for long-term security and low-carbon supply, aligned with the EU’s new taxonomy. With the rapid growth of the digital economy and AI—sectors with high energy demand—these capacities will be essential for the industries of the future.
By acting as a single, coordinated energy block, Kosovo and Albania can increase resilience, reduce dependency on imports, attract investments, and take a leading role in the region’s energy transition toward a clean, secure, and integrated future.
Until then, the “coal of the mountain woman” is not a product to be scorned. It symbolizes what we have today—not what we aspire to tomorrow. But without wisely using what we have, the path to tomorrow will remain out of reach. Migjeni’s mountain woman had no room for ideology—she had real needs. So does Kosovo. With dignity and vision, we must “sell” our coal—not to stay behind, but to move forward.
Kujtim Dobruna is the Founder and Senior Partner at ECIKS, a consultancy specializing in advisory services for foreign investors with an interest in Kosovo and Southeast Europe. This opinion piece was originally published in the Kosovar daily Koha Ditore on June 2, 2025.
