In January, following lengthy debates, heads of the three coalition parties (Reform, SDE and Eesti 200) decided to support a renewable energy development scheme, which would see Estonia subsidize 2 TWh of onshore and 2TWh of offshore wind power, the latter being ten times more costly to develop. According to the coalition's agreement, Estonia was willing to pay offshore wind developers a total of €2.6 billion in subsidies for whenever the market price of electricity dropped below €65/MWh. The coalition failed to produce calculations to demonstrate how this would ensure promised cheaper energy prices or what it's forecast of Estonia seeing a major boost in energy consumption over the next decade is based on.

On Thursday, Minister of Climate Yoko Alender said that after reviewing data from the ministry, the government has decided to cancel the planned subsidy scheme for offshore wind farms and return to the drawing board. The unexpected decision means that by April, Estonia will lose its state aid permit for offshore wind support, meaning no offshore wind farms will be built under this approval. However, Alender said that she and the ministry still plan to continue developing offshore wind.

On Wednesday, government politicians were ready to support the development of offshore wind farms with up to €2.6 billion. On Thursday, Climate Minister Yoko Alender (Reform) announced at the government press conference that now we need to wait at least a year because significant funding is expected from Europe. What happened? Did you also hear on Thursday morning that a large amount of money is coming from Europe and that, because of this, offshore wind farms are being put on hold?

Yes... There have been very intense discussions within the government about energy policy for over half a year, and of course, we have relied on the Climate Ministry's calculations. We have asked for a lot of additional information and, at times, had some doubts, which is a normal part of such discussions.

And finally, when we reached an agreement at the government level on what Estonia's energy direction should be, we based it entirely on what the Climate Ministry had proposed and stated in its calculations. The final agreement still needed to be reviewed in detail.

We truly operated under the assumption that everything was working as planned and that it would provide society with significantly cheaper electricity.

On Thursday, during the government session, the Social Democrats heard that the situation had changed again and that the Ministry of Climate had a new proposal — meaning that, from their perspective, things had shifted.

This situation is all the more interesting because the evening before, the Social Democrats had met with representatives of the ministry. During the meeting, we tried to get a clearer understanding of the numbers and calculations, as a decision was expected in the government the next day. But the next day, in the government session, the situation was completely different.

Do you also believe that it's now worth waiting a year because a lot of money is coming from Europe?

I am skeptical about the claim that a lot of money is coming from Europe. As I understand it, European funding might be available for developing the electricity grid under this measure. And the grid needs to be developed regardless of where we build power capacity. For example, EstLink 3 (a third undersea power cable between Estonia and Finland — ed.) needs to be built anyway.

However, it is also being said that a new state aid application must be submitted to make all of this more reasonable.

In summary, we can acknowledge the climate minister's proposal. If the Climate Ministry has retracted its proposal to the government, then naturally, the government cannot make a decision either.

Was the hope for European funding, which we heard about at the press conference yesterday, the same reasoning that was discussed in the government cabinet meeting?

That is certainly one part of it. The other part is that it is possible to apply for a better and more reasonable state aid permit, and as I understand it, to conduct new calculations and analyses as well.

It seems to me that we are now in a situation where, in terms of the overall energy vision, we can only announce a tender for the construction of onshore wind farms. And for everything else, we will be discussing it further over the next year.

In your view, should the tender for onshore wind farms be announced by April at the latest?

I can't say whether it will be in April or May.

The bigger issue is that, from the entire energy agreement made at the government level, the only actionable step right now is holding tenders for onshore wind farms. Since Estonia ultimately needs affordable electricity, this must, of course, be carried out. Unfortunately, this is also the only decision the government can make in light of the recent developments.

It is a bit concerning that things are unfolding this way. All of this could have been said or realized six months ago — perhaps efforts and resources could have been directed elsewhere.

In Postimees, you were quoted as saying that even the onshore wind farm tender may no longer be necessary, as developers have stated that they can build them at market conditions as long as they do not have to compete with offshore projects.

That was the question we raised in the government.

How do we ensure certainty for those developing onshore wind projects when they do not know whether and under what conditions offshore wind farms will be built?

None of us have a clear picture of what the new conditions will be — whether and what kind of support offshore wind will need in the future. But this uncertainty affects the entire business plan for developers working on onshore projects.

Ultimately, I am not the most knowledgeable person in energy matters and if the Climate Ministry says that we need to develop onshore wind, then we will have to go down that path. As I said, this is also the only part of the energy agreement that can currently be implemented. The rest will have to wait for their time.

But the government also agreed to move forward with the special national spatial plan for a nuclear power plant. Will the Social Democrats approve the initiation of the nuclear power plant spatial plan in the government?

It is quite clear to all of us by now that, despite promises, obtaining data from the Climate Ministry is very difficult.

For weeks now, the public broadcaster (ERR) has been requesting numbers and calculations. The Social Democrats have been asking for a certain level of detail for an even longer time. We have yet to see those final numbers. That is also one of the reasons why final decisions may not have been made.

I believe that the entire logic behind nuclear energy also needs to be critically re-examined, just like the calculations the Climate Ministry has done for wind energy. If those numbers raise questions and create confusion, then I think the same scrutiny should be applied to nuclear energy. We need to ask: What is the real cost? How much will society actually invest in this? We need to go over everything carefully.

It seems to me that whether we are talking about wind energy, nuclear energy or oil shale energy, the most urgent need is a shift in the Ministry of Climate — so that we can even be confident that we are basing our decisions on accurate calculations and reliable data. Only then can we start seriously discussing new projects.

The preparation of nuclear energy legislation is not dependent on these numbers. But when we talk about the next steps, it is clearly in society's best interest to know what this will actually cost.

As I understand it, the Climate Ministry has so far relied heavily on information from a single private company. But it would be more reasonable for neutral experts to redo these calculations. I don't see the point in rushing into anything at this stage.

You said that a change is needed in the Climate Ministry. Describe what kind of change that should be.

You know, I can't say exactly what kind of change is needed in detail. But energy is such a crucial issue that we need certainty — we need to get the right information at the right time and the numbers shouldn't be changing every other day.

I would definitely leave it to the climate minister to propose what should be done. But some changes are necessary.

And I believe this is such an important issue that it should also be addressed at the prime minister's level — to review whether we can make some changes there.

Ultimately, this is about how the Estonian state functions and how the government operates. For the past six months, we have had a lot of confusion around energy policy in the government and no real clarity. At this point, it has become a matter of governance.

Is the current minister up to the task?

The prime minister is certainly in the best position to assess that, as I believe he has the most comprehensive overview of the situation.

Come on.

What I can say is that the key issue is how people do their work and what kind of work they do.

But it is not up to you to say whether another party should replace its minister?

I just said that, in the Social Democrats' view, there has been, to put it mildly, significant confusion regarding energy policy in the government for the past six months and this is a very serious problem for Estonia. This issue needs to be resolved.

I believe I have expressed myself very clearly. How to resolve it is ultimately up to our coalition partner to decide. I think the need for action is quite evident.

Clearly, there are people, tasks and officials in that ministry where serious consideration is needed as to whether changes or renewals are necessary.

Is the issue with politicians or with officials? Is this a problem of political leadership or an administrative issue?

If you are talking about political leadership, specifically the leadership within the government, then that question is primarily for the prime minister. He has the best overview of the governance process across all ministries through the Government Office.

The current minister hasn't been in this ministry for that long, so it wouldn't be fair to place all the blame solely on her. Energy policy has been in preparation for three years, so this process should be evaluated over a longer period.

The law sets its own procedures and soon the government will have to decide how to respond to the proposal to initiate the special spatial plan for a nuclear power plant. When the time comes for this decision in the government, will you support the initiation of the nuclear power plant spatial plan?

I will reiterate the Social Democrats' position. We have never been fundamentally opposed to a nuclear power plant — our concerns have always been economic.

In order to even consider moving forward with the special spatial plan for a nuclear plant, we need clear, concrete calculations and a comprehensive vision for Estonia's overall energy policy from the Climate Ministry. Only then can we assess what role a nuclear power plant would play and what benefits it would bring.

We all understand that there are currently problems with these calculations. This means that until the numbers are clear, verified, and until there is consensus on the energy plan both in society and within the government, it is not possible to make decisions.

If we put it in formal terms, does that mean that until the National Energy and Climate Plan (ENMAK) is adopted, the special spatial plan for the nuclear power plant cannot be initiated?

I can't say for sure whether it is directly tied to ENMAK, but in principle, the logic is the same. ENMAK is a vision document for the government and it should indeed provide a comprehensive perspective. Its advantage is also that the public can then assess whether everything in it is reasonable.

Because we have seen a lot of different claims circulating in society.

But ultimately, the key question remains — if the Climate Ministry wants to argue that we can get all our energy from wind, gas plants, oil shale reserves and storage capacities, then where does nuclear power fit into that equation? That also needs an answer. Right now, these issues are very unclear and I don't understand the logic.

When we agreed on these energy directions, there was also an agreement that we would be shown the calculations and clear timelines before final decisions are made.

At times, members of the government have said that they have seen the calculations and graphs. The government has apparently also seen some calculations that cannot be made public. The Climate Ministry has consistently maintained that these calculations are accurate and Yoko Alender reaffirmed this at yesterday's press conference. Meanwhile, in this interview, you have repeatedly said that the calculations are problematic. So, are there clear and comprehensible calculations or are there not?

I have also said that we do have calculations because they have been shown to us.

But when we have examined these calculations more closely, we have repeatedly found issues and inconsistencies.

For example, there have been claims that if a tender is held for 2 terawatt-hours of offshore wind, the developer will add another 2 terawatt-hours on their own. But that's not true. That assumption is based on the perspective of a single developer, not on what would actually happen in reality.

Or take another case — on paper, all the calculations might look correct, but when we start asking questions — wait a minute, this much onshore wind is being forecasted, but when we ask developers or local governments, we find out that the actual amount could be three, four, five or even ten times less. Why are we being presented with wishful thinking? These projections should be based on realistic numbers.

This back-and-forth is exactly why the government's discussions have taken so long. And I have to say, when new figures and calculations were presented to the Social Democratic Party MPs two days ago, my party colleagues said that, on paper, it all looked fine. But whether it was actually accurate — that wasn't something that could be determined in such a short time.

It is true that there is a lot of confusion and I am not convinced that we have a definitive understanding of the situation today.

Then is it actually a good thing that we're not announcing a billion-euro tender within the next month?

And we certainly wouldn't have announced it, because on Thursday, there would have been a discussion in the government about the calculations and everything else beforehand. This isn't something that can or should be done in that manner.

--

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