Consumers have barely had time to get used to February’s drop in gas prices when rates may rise sharply again. Energocom has proposed raising the rate for residential consumers by 45.2% at once—from the current 14.42 lei to 20.93 lei per cubic meter, including VAT. If the National Energy Regulatory Agency approves the request without changes, gas will not only be more expensive than it is now—its price will be about a quarter higher than the level in effect before the February reduction.
Less than half a year ago, the rate change was presented as a result of more favorable gas procurement costs. On February 4, the price for residential consumers was reduced by 13.9%—from 16.74 to 14.42 lei per cubic meter, including VAT. Now Energocom is asking not only to reverse this reduction but also to raise the rate even higher—to 20.93 lei.
For a family consuming 100 cubic meters of gas per month in the winter, this means an increase in their bill of approximately 651 lei. For a consumption of 200 cubic meters, the additional cost would exceed 1,300 lei per month. No decision has been made yet: Energocom’s request must be reviewed by NARE, which may approve the proposed rate, modify it, or reject it. But the scale of the proposed increase already demonstrates how quickly changes in external markets can translate into higher bills for Moldovan consumers.
Energocom’s explanation is based primarily on rising purchase prices. The current tariff is based on an average gas price of about 30 euros per MWh. According to the company, following the escalation of the conflict in the Middle East and increased risks in the Persian Gulf region, prices on the European market began to rise and reached 56 euros per MWh.
Thus, the purchase price used as a benchmark by Energocom has nearly doubled. This is particularly significant, as the cost of the gas itself accounts for 66% of the current tariff. In other words, two-thirds of the price paid by consumers depends on procurement—and thus on international prices, currency risks, contract terms, and the timing of the company’s market entry.
Energocom also has a formal basis for appealing to the regulator. The company has accumulated negative tariff deviations totaling 106 million lei. These arose because the actual costs of purchasing gas turned out to be higher than the costs factored into the tariff. According to company management, this amount already exceeds the established threshold of 1% of regulated revenue, beyond which the supplier is required to request a price adjustment.
The supplier’s reasoning is clear: if it continues to sell gas at a rate calculated based on a price of 30 euros per MWh, while purchasing it at a significantly higher cost, the difference will continue to accumulate. Sooner or later, it will have to be factored into future rates anyway. Furthermore, the growth in uncovered costs could complicate Energocom’s settlements with suppliers and jeopardize the company’s financial stability.
The Ministry of Energy supports the idea of more timely tariff adjustments. Minister Dorin Jungietu believes that end-user prices should be reviewed quarterly based on the situation on the international market. In his view, this will ensure greater predictability and prevent significant tariff discrepancies from accumulating.
A separate argument put forward by the authorities is that it is better to implement a rate increase in the summer, when the population consumes less gas. If the adjustment is postponed until the cold season, the accumulated difference could be even greater, and the increase would coincide with the period of peak bills.
From an accounting standpoint, this position seems rational. Actual expenses do not disappear simply because the regulator delays recognizing them. But for consumers, the issue looks different: why is the risk of sudden changes in international market conditions almost immediately passed on to the tariff, while the procurement process itself, the structure of contracts, and the pricing decisions made remain insufficiently transparent to the public?
The sharp increase has become not only an economic conflict but also a management conflict. Alexander Slusar, a member of Energocom’s administrative board, resigned, stating that the request had not been discussed by the company’s board and that its members learned of the decision at the same time the official announcement was published.
Slusar called the appeal to the National Energy Regulatory Agency (NARE) premature and economically unjustified given the high volatility of international prices. In his view, during the summer, when gas consumption is significantly lower, negative tariff deviations do not exert such serious pressure on the supplier’s financial operations. Therefore, the company could have waited for a more stable market trend before demanding a tariff increase of nearly 50 percent.
This dispute shows that the main issue is not the fact of rising purchase prices itself—which Energocom confirms with specific figures—but rather the timing and mechanism of the response. One side proposes adjusting the rate immediately to avoid accumulating debt. The other side believes that a short-term price spike should not be passed on to consumers until it is clear how long it will last.
In a volatile market, both approaches carry risks. If the rate is not raised and gas prices remain high, Energocom will continue to accumulate losses, which will eventually be passed on to consumers anyway. If, on the other hand, the rate is raised now and international prices soon fall, consumers will be paying a price calculated based on peak or near-peak rates.
Energocom promises to monitor the market and apply to the National Energy Regulatory Agency (NARE) for a rate reduction when conditions warrant it. However, this is precisely where the issue of trust in the system arises. For consumers, it is important not only how quickly the rate rises when market conditions deteriorate, but also how promptly it falls when the cost of procurement goes down.
The idea of quarterly price reviews could make the system more transparent, but only if clear rules are in place. The public needs to see not only the final figure in the request to NARE, but also the structure of purchases: what volumes have already been purchased, at what prices, for what period, what portion of demand remains uncontracted, and to what extent current exchange quotes truly reflect the average cost of gas that will be supplied to Moldovan consumers.
Without such information, the discussion inevitably boils down to two opposing claims: Energocom says that without a price hike, it will lose its financial stability, while critics believe the company is rushing to shift market risk onto the public. It is up to the regulator to verify the validity of each position.
NARE must assess not only compliance with the tariff methodology but also the reliability of the projected purchase cost, the extent of accumulated deviations, and the period for which the new price is proposed. The fact that the calculations formally comply with the methodology does not yet answer the question of whether a 45.2% increase is the only possible solution at this particular moment.
The gas tariff is once again becoming a litmus test for Moldova’s entire energy policy. In recent years, the country has diversified its supplies and moved away from its previous dependence on a single source. But diversification in and of itself does not guarantee low or stable prices. Now, consumers depend not so much on the decisions of a single supplier as on fluctuations in the international market.
This is a safer, but not necessarily cheaper, model. And as long as the country lacks sufficiently robust financial mechanisms to smooth out price spikes, every new external crisis risks being quickly reflected in utility bills.
Therefore, the main question surrounding Energocom’s request is not merely whether NARE will approve the price of 20.93 lei per cubic meter. Far more important is whether the authorities will be able to explain why consumers must pay for the nearly twofold increase in the declared purchase price right now, what decisions were made during the gas procurement process, and how quickly the tariff will be revised downward if the international market stabilizes.
Without answers to these questions, the rate increase will be perceived not as a technical adjustment, but as yet another instance of shifting external risk onto the public. //July 16, 2026 – InfoMarket.