Finance minister: Energy needs to be debated in the government, not party meetings

Finance Minister Jürgen Ligi (Reform) stated that he was deeply disturbed by the mechanism through which the leaders of the three coalition parties reached an agreement on the establishment of offshore and onshore wind farms, bypassing the government. Ligi also noted that sources spreading misinformation about onshore wind farms form a hostile and interconnected network aimed at creating global uncertainty.
As Minister of Finance and as the general meeting of Eesti Energia, are you aware of the calculations agreed upon by the leaders of the coalition parties? Have you seen them?
I have seen some of it, of course — we have discussed it in the government. However, I am currently concerned about the decision-making mechanism. The government has not fully discussed this matter; we've had debates, but it is already on the agenda for tomorrow.
Frankly, I find it very disturbing when someone comes from a party meeting and announces that the parties have reached an agreement — or the party leaders have. Whether it concerns the prosecutor general, energy or anything else, decisions within the executive branch must be made by the government and there must be well-reasoned debate. Decisions about figures, analyses or technical matters — which fall under the government's competence and constitutional responsibility — cannot be made in the coalition council, as it seemed to me yesterday. That is my concern.
As for the entire energy issue, there are so many variables and loose ends. We do not truly know the course the world can manage to plot. We do not know exactly how the environment will respond or when. But the shared sense of responsibility that we must move toward a more sustainable economy is something we all agree on. However, within that, there are many details to debate — how we implement this, at what cost and whether we will remain competitive with this responsibly produced electricity. All of it needs to be discussed by the government, not a party meeting.
The public does not know exactly how the decision was made. We started receiving calls from the political advisers of party leaders, offering interviews and saying that the decision was made on Sunday. Do you know how this was handled?
We have, of course, discussed this repeatedly in the government. I have also put forward my critical questions. Knowing very well that I do not have an alternative plan, as I was not involved in the discussions of the previous government, I would not say that I am opposed to the development of wind energy. I certainly am not. But I would like wind energy to succeed in the market so that consumers have little reason to complain.
There will always be complaints, but ideally not too many. We need to ensure that we can actually produce it, not just invest in it. There are also concerns about state aid — under what conditions it has been granted and whether we might need to apply for new state aid approval. These are technical matters that the public doesn't necessarily need to understand in detail, but they should grasp that retreating from renewable energy is neither possible nor necessary.
The government bases its decisions on the best available knowledge, not just political bargaining. Right now, the public perception seems to be that we are simply trading favors — one party gets something and another gets something in return. That is not how the government should appear.

Climate Minister Yoko Alender (Reform) was also placed in a very difficult situation. Yesterday's "Aktuaalne kaamera" studio interview was a striking example where she essentially had to stand and justify decisions that were made behind her back.
Perhaps decisions were made behind her back as well, and of course, she faced challenges. We are, after all, members of the government, and there is an element of impartiality involved. Still, we are the key ministers in this field, though I am less involved in a systematic way since the Ministry of Climate deals more with the electricity system. However, I also need to ensure that the state budget is not burdened.
I do not want a culture where ministers learn about decisions in the same way as the public, where it seems like party leaders are making deals somewhere. That is not the case, because we have, in fact, discussed matters extensively in the government. On many issues, we are in agreement. However, these loose ends should not be tied up in this manner. Ministers should be involved in the process, not party organizations.
Let's talk about the state aid approval for a moment. You mentioned that it might be necessary to apply for a new one. What's the issue with it?
The issue is rushing. To announce these auctions, there is no full guarantee that we can avoid burdening the taxpayer. That's one concern. The problem with the state aid approval is that the current approval was granted under very different conditions than what the next one would require. The current approval is tied to the Ukraine war and related special circumstances. It is a special authorization valid until the end of the year.
However, to make use of it, an auction must already be announced in April and there are still unanswered questions regarding that auction. The time pressure is very significant here. We acknowledge that this is a problem, but we do not want it to simply be ignored. These problems need to be addressed and resolved, not just agreed upon somewhere else.
Are you concerned that the April auction will be rushed and that it might be necessary to take a step back and discuss these matters further?
The auction itself is not being rushed, but the entire wind energy project requires better preparation. We believe that the uncertainty can be reduced, including risks to the state budget. That said, I can also acknowledge that some things have improved — whether due to party leaders or the coalition council, I'm not exactly sure, but it was not decided by the government.
For instance, the overly enthusiastic consumption target, which was once around 15 terawatt-hours, has now been scaled back. Similarly, the planned volume of wind farms has been reduced — from four [terawatt-hours] on land and two offshore to two on land and two offshore.
Does this actually mean that the ambition, which has been heavily criticized, to produce as much renewable energy as is consumed by 2030, is not entirely realistic?
I'm pleased to say that our biggest critics and oil shale enthusiasts were the ones who decided on this goal back in 2020. It was set by the EKREIKE government (of the Center Party, EKRE and Isamaa —ed.). We believe that the state should maintain consistency and not overturn everything with every change of power. So, we approach this goal with respect.
However, there are concerns. If we move forward with achieving this, will there still be room for nuclear energy in the market? Will we be able to offer our electricity capacities elsewhere in the market? The issue is that nuclear energy is more expensive and wind power, which operates during a significant portion of the year, would supply cheap electricity to the market.
This agreement also mentions energy storage, which is a very reasonable component. But again, we don't know at what cost the storage would operate or how much support it would require. At least those would have been my questions in government and have been in the past as well.
I can't say there's a conflict here. I often read in the newspapers about one party blocking another's plan. I don't have a party-specific plan and I don't think such a thing exists right now. But the pros, cons and questions must be thoroughly discussed at government meetings, not just announced as having reached a conclusion. At the moment, there are still unresolved issues hanging in the air.

You have previously stated that it might be better to focus on onshore wind farms. However, now there is an agreement among party leaders to move forward with supporting two terawatts of offshore wind farms, at a total cost of €2.6 billion. This is extraordinarily expensive compared to onshore wind farms. Does this figure not horrify you as minister of finance?
If consumers have to pay for what they consume, the numbers will inevitably be sky-high. But the real concern is whether this kind of project can sell enough on the market to pay off. We are constantly paying significant amounts in subsidies for energy. My earlier remark was that I approached that meeting with optimism, hoping we could establish a gradual approach — starting with onshore wind farms. However, I left with a grim realization, which I had already predicted myself: there is overwhelming resistance to onshore wind farms.
There are certain individuals driving around — many of whom are not even local residents. I have reliable information that a large portion of these people are not politically affiliated. They are simply fringe figures spreading conspiracy theories and claims about mysterious "info waves" coming from somewhere. I understand perfectly the argument about disturbing the local living environment — locals don't want their peace disrupted. But alongside that, they draw horror stories about these "info waves," showing pictures and videos. Seemingly serious people spread claims about how the turbines go "whoosh-whoosh" right past the viewer's eyes, accompanied by dark sounds and moving shadows. This is misinformation. Yet a significant number of Estonians have already accepted this as proof that turbines are out to suffocate them with blades, make them deaf or turn them into fools. This is outright false information.
I want people to understand that the sources of this misinformation are hostile to Estonia and part of interconnected networks designed to create global uncertainty.
But when local resistance is strong, wind energy development faces a major roadblock. This was predictable to me, and now it has happened. That's why I can no longer simply say, "Let's only build wind farms on land." I can't say that, because my fear has come true. Everyone is against everything. There are organized groups traveling around to agitate people and they have similar "strike forces" on social media. This is an influence campaign that turns people into fools, prompting them to reproduce and spread the misinformation themselves. They think they are speaking their minds, but in reality, they are spouting nonsense and causing significant harm.
Is your concern that an electricity system built largely with taxpayer money might not be able to provide competitive electricity in the future that could be sold to Latvia or elsewhere in Central Europe?
I am fighting to ensure that it is not funded by taxpayer money but rather by consumer money. There is a big difference. If the production is profitable, then the consumer pays, and in the end, they receive the product at a fair price. The problem arises if it's not efficient, if the risks are not mitigated and if, at some point, we have a surplus that cannot be sold anywhere — then it might not be marketable.
If we invest more than our market can actually consume, the export markets may not be able to absorb it. This is a longer discussion. One part of the solution is to distribute these risks across Europe. Wind conditions vary across regions and even solar production differs depending on the time and location within Europe.
We need to find a solution where the consumer gets their product without the taxpayer artificially subsidizing it. It's a complex issue, but we're debating to ensure that the product remains marketable. At the very least, let's establish in the government what we know and what we don't know. Ministers shouldn't have to hear later that someone else already knew something elsewhere. That has been the main point of my comments.
When you've participated in these government discussions, is it true that the Social Democrats are the strongest proponents of offshore wind farms? And is Jevgeni Ossinovski specifically pushing for swift state aid approval to move forward with the project?
Jevgeni Ossinovski is the mayor of Tallinn and I have no knowledge of his role in this matter. I do know, however, that there is finger-pointing at various political parties. I don't think it's warranted, as all parties, in one way or another, have deemed renewable energy unavoidable. In contrast, the opposition seems to argue for continuing with oil shale, even though it's nearly impossible to make it competitive in the market — but they still push for it.
People talk about ideology, but natural science is not ideology. For instance, Urmas Reinsalu brings in some ideologized arguments. Yet the principles we are discussing are actually very market-oriented mechanisms that take into account external effects — things like resource depletion, the environment and so on. These principles are grounded in market economics. Even the support schemes that have been devised are quite market-driven. It's unfair to claim this is some form of socialism. Socialism was when nothing mattered for the sake of a grand idea — when everything was polluted and finite resources were recklessly consumed.
I also heard some finger-pointing yesterday during a conversation with someone with whom I often disagree. This person pointed fingers in a completely different direction and I tried to explain that what they were saying probably wasn't true. But they pointed to business interests and alleged political connections. I do not agree with such paranoia. Listening to someone with a business interest is not inherently wrong, as long as it is transparent and the conclusions are based on sound reasoning. That's fine.
But it's those well-reasoned conclusions that I want to hear from the government — not to find out through the news that something has already been decided.

--
Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!
Editor: Urmet Kook, Marcus Turovski