During ETV's "Esimene stuudio" debate on Wednesday, members of Estonia's government coalition argued that delays in renewable energy decisions have contributed to the country's high electricity prices. However, they believe that a recent energy agreement between the leaders of the three coalition parties will help bring prices down.

Minister of Health and Social Protection Riina Sikkut (Social Democratic Party) emphasized the importance of having made a decision, stating that the delay in implementing energy policies had led to the current high electricity prices.

Igor Taro (Eesti 200) criticized the lack of action over the past decade, calling it "brain dead" policymaking. According to him, excessive discussion without agreement had stalled progress. He emphasized that making concrete decisions was the only way to lower electricity prices.

However, opposition parties disagreed with the coalition's approach. Rain Epler (EKRE) acknowledged the importance of making decisions but argued that the current energy plan would weaken Estonia's economic situation, make people poorer and fail to lower electricity prices.

Mart Maastik (Isamaa) warned against basing energy policy on ideology, arguing that the government is planning excessive renewable energy development. He pointed out that Estonia already has significant renewable energy capacity and that current plans would result in overproduction. Instead of relying solely on wind and solar energy, he suggested utilizing biomass, which is also a green energy source.

Similarly, Lauri Laats (Center) criticized the coalition for basing energy policy on ideology rather than economic feasibility. He questioned whether the planned €2.6 billion in offshore wind farm subsidies over 20 years would actually lead to lower electricity prices. According to him, subsidies drive prices up rather than down.

Laats argued that energy policy should prioritize cost considerations. He explained that while wind and solar energy could reduce electricity generation costs, grid fees would rise significantly due to the need for infrastructure expansion. Overproduction, he said, would only make electricity more expensive for consumers.

Epler blamed the coalition parties for their hostility toward oil shale energy, which he claimed had contributed to high electricity prices. He acknowledged the successful disconnection from Russia's electricity grid but pointed out that Estonia lacks sufficient transmission capacity, particularly as the second Estlink cable to Finland is out of commission.

He criticized the government for weakening Estonia's energy independence by discouraging domestic energy production based on oil shale, which he claimed was a unique resource that should be used to ensure energy security. According to Epler, current renewable energy developers still rely on imported fossil fuels, such as natural gas, to support wind and solar power — an approach he deemed irrational.

Government politicians maintained that increasing production capacity is key to reducing electricity prices. Sikkut argued that renewable energy subsidies would not raise prices, as any state support must be significantly smaller than the economic benefit of lower energy costs for consumers.

She acknowledged that there are different ways to finance renewable energy subsidies but stressed that the overall impact on consumer electricity bills is what matters most. According to her, it is ultimately a matter of simple economics — whether consumers would rather pay a slightly higher rate per kilowatt-hour or face overall higher electricity costs due to insufficient supply.

Sikkut also highlighted the long-term benefits of renewable energy in reducing environmental damage and health risks, arguing that Estonia should not continue with landscape-altering, health-damaging forms of electricity production when modern, cost-effective alternatives are available.

Taro emphasized that expanding electricity production would lower prices, adding that Estonia should develop all available energy sources, including nuclear energy. He dismissed opposition claims that the coalition was failing to address high electricity prices, arguing that the real issue was their desire to return to oil shale-based electricity generation.

Annely Akkermann (Reform) criticized the opposition for failing to act when they had the opportunity. She argued that Estonia's 10-year delay in renewable energy development was the reason for today's high prices. According to her, resistance from local governments had prevented the construction of new renewable energy projects, leaving Estonia behind its neighbors.

Akkermann compared Estonia to Latvia and Lithuania, where renewable energy accounted for 72 percent and 77 percent of electricity consumption, respectively, last year, compared to Estonia's 55 percent. She argued that, had Estonia not wasted a decade due to local opposition, it would also be enjoying significantly cheaper electricity today.

She dismissed oil shale as an effective solution, pointing out that Eesti Energia's CEO had stated that producing electricity from oil shale costs 18 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is expensive compared to alternatives. The cheapest options, according to Akkermann, are wind energy, followed by solar and biomass.

The debate highlighted the ongoing division in Estonian politics over energy policy. While the coalition believes that increasing renewable energy production will lower prices, the opposition argues that overproduction and infrastructure costs could make electricity more expensive. As Estonia moves forward with its energy transition, the challenge remains balancing affordability, security and sustainability.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!