Second Reading of the Riigikogu Resolution "Supporting the Introduction of Nuclear Energy in Estonia" (431 OE)
Session: 15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd session, plenary session.
Date: 2024-06-12 21:01
Total Speeches: 178
Membership: 15
Agenda Duration: 2h 44m
AI Summaries: 178/178 Speeches (100.0%)
Analysis: Structured Analysis
Politicians Speaking Time
Politicians
Analysis
Summary
The discussion of agenda item 11 focuses on preparations for the deployment of nuclear energy in Estonia and the creation of a legal framework. The core process involved holding joint sessions of the Environment Committee and the Economic Affairs Committee, considering the final report submitted by interest groups and the government working group, and deliberating various proposed amendments. Prior to submitting Draft Bill 431 for the final vote of the second reading, thorough risk assessments, consideration of national security and economic consequences, and compatibility with the guidelines of ENMAK 2035 were reviewed. The planned legal framework does not immediately bring nuclear energy into use but rather creates the foundation for further studies, analysis, and decision-making. The debate highlighted differing views regarding the role of both renewable and dispatchable energy and the allocation of funds, and stressed the need for comprehensive cost-benefit and risk analyses before any final decisions are made.
Decisions Made 1
The final vote on Bill 431 was conducted: 41 in favor, 25 against, 2 abstentions. Draft Act 431 has been adopted by the Riigikogu in the final vote.
Most Active Speaker
Priit Lomp (TTBOpGaQCWM) was likely the most active speaker; his participation, concentrated in long speeches and procedural questions, along with discussions on improving cooperation, indicated a strong influence during the initial debate. His position in this debate is equally expressed as "other," meaning he was not a special representative of the left or right faction; he actively worked to find mechanisms and compromises and spoke about detailed procedural cycles and substantive decision-making processes.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas announces that we are moving on to the 11th item on the agenda, and Priit Lomp is raising a procedural question.
Priit Lomp
AI Summary
Priit Lomp emphasizes that this specific agenda item must be read out loud, and he will certainly inquire about whether it is permitted for it to reach the floor.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas is inviting the audience to ask their questions once more to ensure the matter is fully clarified.
Priit Lomp
AI Summary
Priit Lomp apologizes for rushing and notes that no one managed to read it out loud.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas asks what he did not manage to read out.
Priit Lomp
AI Summary
Priit Lomp states the title of this agenda item.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas announced that they had reached the 11th item on the agenda, hinted at a recent surprise without specifying what the item was, and asked if there were any further procedural questions.
Priit Lomp
AI Summary
Priit Lomp voiced his concern that the amendment proposal he drafted, which was signed by 19 members of the Riigikogu, has not been substantively considered. He further asks whether the Riigikogu Bureau should monitor the committees' outgoing communications and find a solution for situations where committees fail to provide reliable information.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas explained that the Riigikogu Board does not control the press releases issued by the committee, and there is no plan to initiate oversight. He added that this is a procedural question, which was raised by Züleyxa Izmailova.
Züleyxa Izmailova
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Züleyxa Izmailova raised a concern that during the public session of the Environmental Committee, she, as a member of parliament not on the committee, was neither given the floor nor permitted to ask questions, despite the fact that it is reportedly customary to allow non-committee members to speak, especially concerning a topic as crucial as the construction of a nuclear power plant.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas said there was a loud noise in the chamber and that the acoustics on the left side were truly very poor, and he asked Züleyxa Izmailova to continue.
Züleyxa Izmailova
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
He is requesting your assessment of the described situation.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Briefly put, committees have autonomy in organizing their work, and when necessary, they should be given the floor or the opportunity to ask questions, and Tiit Maran raised a procedural question.
Tiit Maran
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Tiit Maran raised a procedural question in the Environment Committee regarding how he should proceed, given that the committee had adopted the amendments and instructed him that he must vote either for or against, despite the fact that he had not consulted with the 19 signatories he was representing.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas said that one must listen to the voice of conscience, confirmed that Tiit Maran is free in his mandate, and asked Mart Maastik to present a procedural question.
Mart Maastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Mart Maastik stated that he was currently reviewing 431 OE amendments, and there is no committee position available regarding whether these should be supported or not. Furthermore, these positions should, as a rule, be present here.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas emphasized that the committee's positions must be included, and noted that the printout of 431 OE contains five amendments, each of which is backed by a committee decision. He then promised to immediately check whether the list of the draft bill, along with the lead committee's positions, was available in the chamber.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
The recess has ended. Bill 431 is available in the back files and includes the opinions of the lead committee, and Liisa-Ly Pakosta requested a point of order.
Liisa-Ly Pakosta
AI Summary
He emphasized that the statement originated from the explanatory memorandum of the draft bill, not a press release, and that the claim made therein—that the environment committee had decided to substantively support the proposals—is factually false. Furthermore, points 2 and 3 do not reflect the substantive consideration of the proposals but instead lead to the opposite result. He then asked how to proceed in this situation.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas confirmed that the board would not start overturning the decisions of the steering committee, and he asked Rain Epler to submit a procedural question.
Rain Epler
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Rain Epler noted that the prime minister had stressed the importance of remembering proverbs, and he used a point of order to remind Izmailova and Maran, while also heading into summer, by recalling the proverb 'chickens come home to roost.'
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Jüri Ratas thanked [the previous speaker/the floor] and asked Tiit Maran to submit a procedural question.
Tiit Maran
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
He asks whether the lack of substantive consideration—as stated during the committee meeting—coupled with the chairman's assertion that the work is substantive nonetheless, fundamentally constitutes proper procedure.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas emphasized the autonomy of the committees, stating that the Board does not determine their rules of procedure. He then introduced the 11th item on the agenda: the second reading of Riigikogu Draft Resolution 431, titled "Supporting the Introduction of Nuclear Energy in Estonia," and requested Igor Taro, the Chairman of the Environment Committee, to present the report.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
Esteemed Chair, briefly speaking, the procedure for OE No. 431 has been carried out thoroughly; stakeholders and experts have been involved, several amendments have been discussed, and compromises have been reached. As a result, the committee is left with two amendments: No. 4 and No. 5.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas said that time marches on and time flies, and thanked everyone for their attention.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
Igor Taro said that he understands he is being given extra time for this.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas announced that the participant would be granted additional time and requested that they continue.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
The Environment Committee submitted amendment proposal No. 5, which supplements the draft bill with two additional points: Point 2 addresses the impact of introducing nuclear energy related to ENMAK 2035 and energy supply security during the transition to climate-neutral energy production, and Point 3 establishes the basis for a thorough assessment regarding risks associated with national security financing and ownership structure. Although proposals 1–3 cannot be incorporated into the draft bill for substantive reasons, the leading committee decided on June 6 to submit the draft bill for the second reading to the Riigikogu plenary session agenda and propose it for final voting.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas thanked the presenter and opened the floor for questions.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kalle Grünthal posed a simple question to Igor: what the word Chernobyl meant to him.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
Igor Taro says that Chernobyl is located in Ukraine.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas invited Mart Maastik to speak.
Mart Maastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Mart Maastik is asking exactly what parts of his amendment proposal were taken into account in the draft decision titled "Supporting the Introduction of Nuclear Energy in Estonia," stressing that before any support for nuclear energy is given, the costs of ensuring Estonia's energy supply security must be determined. He also noted that his proposal did not address the issue of climate-neutral production or the specific deployment of nuclear energy, but he still wants to know what portion of it has actually been factored in as support.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
He said that the proposal was supported partially, not fully, specifically in the parts concerning the analysis and assessment of supply security conducted through the preparation of the energy sector development plan.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas asks to give the floor to Züleyxa Izmailova.
Züleyxa Izmailova
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
The speaker asks how ethical this is, and how often the environmental commission has made sweeping decisions for the country as a result of the lobbying efforts of one specific company.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
Igor Taro said that he does not recall making or supporting such decisions.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
The speech is focused exclusively on the request to address Priit Lomp.
Priit Lomp
AI Summary
Priit Lomp asserts that there is a difference in understanding regarding the statement made to ERR concerning involvement, and that when drafting the development plan, the client decides whether to highlight various scenarios or the recommended variant. He also criticizes Igor for rushing and using pressure, asking whose influence compels him to act in this manner.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
Igor Taro said that broad-based engagement was carried out during the process, including two public hearings and joint sessions with the committees, and efforts were made to find solutions for involving stakeholders, rather than simply choosing the path of resistance.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
The announcement is a request for Reili Rand to come forward.
Reili Rand
Profiling Sotsiaaldemokraatliku Erakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Reili Rand asks why such a significant energy policy decision is being made without prior risk assessment and scrutiny, and whether a nuclear power plant is actually necessary for Estonia's energy system.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
He/She emphasizes that the draft legislation concerns the prospective deployment of nuclear energy, not the construction of a nuclear power plant, and that several analyses and considerations can be carried out after the decision has been adopted.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas asks Jaak Aab to come and speak.
AI Summary
The Nuclear Energy Working Group emphasizes that the adoption of nuclear energy requires comprehensive long-term preparation and is achievable under certain conditions. However, it remains unclear whether it is necessary for Estonia's energy system, or whether the resources and costs justify immediate large-scale investments prior to a thorough assessment and the determination of actual need.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
Igor Taro emphasizes that the consideration of the need for a power plant can only begin after thorough preparations, which fall under the proceedings of the Nuclear Energy and Safety Act and require additional, in-depth studies. The results of these studies are based on preliminary information, and the working group's report notes that there is no contradiction regarding this information.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas invited Tiit Maran to speak.
Tiit Maran
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Mr./Madam Chair, I recall the recent meeting of the Committee on the Environment, where I pointed out that one element of all those amendments was conditionality, which subsequently vanished, and I asked why the Social Democrats were not consulted, and who this strange Environment Committee is that drafted the points you presented, which were claimed to have been thoroughly scrutinized.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
Igor Taro explains that the submitter of the amendment seeks not only a vote, but also the consideration of the objective, utilizing a technically correct and slightly different wording. To this end, negotiations were conducted with commission officials, the representative of the bill's initiators, and representatives of the Ministry of Climate, which resulted in a solution being found in the proposal prepared for discussion by the commission on June 6.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas asked Tanel Kiik to speak.
Tanel Kiik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Tanel Kiik asks if the waiter understands the difference between a conditional relationship and writing sentences sequentially, providing an example from the health sector.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
He asserts that the Social Democratic Party is fundamentally opposed to nuclear energy and intends to vote against the bill. He stresses that the amendment proposal must take into account the development plan for the energy sector and analyze other aspects as well, but the example concerning knee surgery is irrelevant to the context of the bill.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Jüri Ratas invited Liisa-Ly Pakosta to come up on stage.
Liisa-Ly Pakosta
AI Summary
Liisa-Ly Pakosta asks why she, as the submitter of the proposal, was not consulted, and why the ENMAK sequence is being changed so that the advancement of nuclear energy is scheduled before the review of energy impacts and other related matters, and before the legal act takes effect in 2027, and why this is currently being done contrary to the established process and in such a rush.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
He said there was no rush, and that the bill involves a long process both before and after [this stage], and he replied that if someone wanted a personal consultation, they could have requested to be appointed as the representative of the amendment submitters on the committee, in order to be included in the discussion.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
This address is solely a request to invite Züleyxa Izmailova.
Züleyxa Izmailova
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
He argues that it is illogical to begin preparations for a nuclear power plant without a clear, science-based conviction regarding its necessity, and that, according to Estonian scientists and experts, it is neither necessary nor cost-effective.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
The speaker emphasizes that the bill does not address the construction of a nuclear power plant, but instead creates the necessary conditions for the deployment of nuclear energy.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas calls upon Priit Sibul.
Priit Sibul
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Priit Sibul expresses concern about why some issues in energy policy require parliamentary debate and intervention, but in another case, funds are freely disbursed and the wind energy subsidy was approved without debate, and he asks what it means if the nuclear energy bill is not passed.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
Igor Taro says he wants to pose the same question to people who have passionately supported the implementation of renewable energy but haven't asked those same questions regarding nuclear energy.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
The Deputy Speaker calls upon Tiit Maran to speak.
Tiit Maran
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
He criticizes the fact that, despite claims that all stakeholders were consulted, not a single representative of those who submitted amendments was involved, and questions whether they are actually considered stakeholders or how else this can be explained.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
Igor Taro stressed that decisions are made within the committee, not externally, and the work conducted outside was merely the coordination of compromises with the executive body, where a single individual represented both the initiators of the draft bill and the submitters of every amendment proposal.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas invites Jaak Aab to speak.
AI Summary
Jaak Aab said that various governments have confirmed the development of renewable energy, and the assessment by the Legal and Analysis Department of the Riigikogu Chancellery is that the draft resolution is not legally binding, and its adoption will not compel the government or the ministries. Rather, the goal is to encourage the continuation of preparations.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
The speech highlighted that there are various aspects requiring assessment and further investigation. The executive branch is currently analyzing these issues, guided by the political direction provided by the Riigikogu.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas turned to Liisa-Ly Pakosta and said: "Please."
Liisa-Ly Pakosta
AI Summary
Liisa-Ly Pakosta continues and asks for the specific provision of the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act that mandates the submitters of an amendment to select a representative from among themselves; she emphasizes that subsection 4 of § 99 of the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act does not stipulate such a requirement. She recalls the custom that when multiple amendments are submitted, an email containing the potential new wording is sent to the submitters, and she asks why that email was not sent and which specific legal act supports your interpretation that the submitters of the amendment should have chosen a representative, given that the amendment in question was not considered substantively.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
He dissented from the final claim, noting that he did not know why Tiit Maran represented the representative of the amendment proposers, and suggested asking Maran on what grounds he did so.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
During the address, the speaker is requested to continue.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
He said that Priit Sibul represented Mart Maastik on some basis (either a written mandate or verbal authorization), and Mario Kadastik represented the initiator of the draft bill, and he could not say why they were in that committee or whether they acted unlawfully.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
The Deputy Speaker called upon Ester Karuse to take the floor.
Ester Karuse
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
The speaker asks whether countries dealing with the security of nuclear power plants in a war situation, such as Ukraine, have been consulted, and if not, why not, and whether this threat has been discussed with them.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
The presentation within the OTRK framework emphasized non-military threats and the vulnerability of the energy system, noting critical components located near the border in Ida-Virumaa, such as the Auvere synchronous compensator. It also confirmed that the draft legislation does not create a dangerous facility but rather helps develop safety requirements, assess risks, and take measures based on those assessments.
Tanel Kiik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Tanel Kiik criticizes the administrative approach regarding the nuclear energy issue and asks whether the word "support" in the bill's title is accurate if final approval is not actually being granted.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas invites Tanel Kiik to the stage.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
The phrasing refers to the creation of necessary conditions for the implementation of nuclear energy, and the draft bill does not support the construction of a specific facility without an impact assessment; we have already discussed these issues over several rounds.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Vice-Speaker Jüri Ratas calls on Priit Sibul.
Priit Sibul
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Priit Sibul is criticizing the decisions secretly made by the cabinet concerning wind energy subsidies. He also questions why opportunities for moving forward are context-dependent, and why a parliamentary statement is required specifically for the nuclear issue.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
Estonia has designated renewable energy as an overriding public interest, is rapidly transitioning toward climate-neutral energy production within the current decade, and is developing a 15-to-20-year plan to replace fossil fuels, all while debating whether to further increase the share of renewables or utilize other methods as well.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
The Deputy Speaker calls upon Mart Maastik to speak.
Mart Maastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Mart Maastik poses a specific question as to why the Riigikogu should already be supporting the introduction of nuclear energy in Estonia without any analyses, and he requests clarification regarding the cost and reasonableness of that support.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
Igor Taro stressed that the draft bill is technology-neutral and geared towards a diverse energy policy. It also leaves open the possibility of nuclear energy in the future, while emphasizing that necessary decisions must first be made and a legal framework established so that consumer costs reflect market conditions.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas invites Mario Kadastik to speak.
Mario Kadastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Mario Kadastik asks whether the commission’s compromise proposal was put to a vote without modification, or if it was substantially supplemented and amended based on proposals initiated locally.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
The Commission adopted the compromise proposal and all amendments. There were no votes against, and some people abstained under certain conditions.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas clarifies that the current item on the agenda is a Question and Answer session, not a round of debate, and a right of reply is permitted only if a name or specific point was raised during the debate. He then invites Aivar Kokk to take the floor.
Aivar Kokk
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Aivar Kokk emphasizes that nuclear energy is not renewable energy, reminds us that renewable energy production capacity in Estonia must be as large as Estonia's consumption by 2030, and asks who actually wrote this draft bill and whose name we are currently debating in the hall.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
Igor Taro explains that they are currently debating the draft legislation submitted by 55 Riigikogu members—a bill typically prepared by someone specific—and he has signed it over to Mario Kadastik, who acts as the representative for the submitters.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Jüri Ratas called Priit Lomp up to the stage.
Priit Lomp
AI Summary
Priit Lomp criticized the bill’s claim of technology neutrality and the wording of the proposed amendments, noting that the matter had gotten weirdly sidetracked. He recommended suspending the second reading and holding a thorough discussion in the committee.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
I don't get that feeling right now.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas called upon Aivar Kokk to speak.
Aivar Kokk
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Aivar Kokk accuses the chairman of the commission of lying, claiming that the rise in electricity prices is not due to a deficit, but rather the construction of Elering's third high-voltage line. He emphasizes that no new nuclear state has emerged this century, and the question of Estonia becoming a nuclear state serves the interests of one lobby group, rather than being part of a broader discussion about buying nuclear energy or creating a joint nuclear power plant with Finland. He finally asks who drafted this bill and why we are deciding that Estonia will become a nuclear state.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Jüri Ratas addresses the questioner and announces that it is now the questioner's time.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
The Parliament is assessing the decision based on various considerations; the committee has done everything to ensure the debate is open and that the Estonian people are aware of the substance of the matter, and this decision is now ready for deliberation by the Riigikogu.
Riina Solman
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Riina Solman requests from the podium a clarification regarding the bill's objective. She asks whether Estonia is set to become a nuclear state or is merely establishing the legal framework for such a possibility, and whether the working group formed by the government was born out of lobbying efforts or was a government initiative.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
This is simply a request for Riina Solman to speak up.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
Igor Taro explains that the decision to adopt nuclear energy in Estonia is based on the final report of the government’s impartial working group. Furthermore, a suitable legal framework is being planned, the impacts of nuclear energy on the 2035 National Energy Development Plan are being taken into account, and national security, along with a thorough assessment of financing and ownership structure risks, will be ensured.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
The Vice-Chair thanks the speaker and invites Riina Solman to take the floor.
Riina Solman
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Riina Solman requested an explanation of the background—where the working group and its report originated, and what purpose it was established for—because there is skepticism in the room that this is the work of lobby groups.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
Igor Taro stated that the debate surrounding Estonia's nuclear energy has been ongoing for a long time, and we have tried various solutions and cooperated with other countries. However, this current draft bill will not solve all the problems; rather, it moves us one step closer to a solution.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas thanked the speaker, announced that there were no further questions, opened the debate, and invited Tiit Maran, who represents the Social Democratic Party faction, to the Riigikogu rostrum, noting that Maran could also speak on his own behalf.
Tiit Maran
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Tiit Maran stresses that Estonia’s decision regarding nuclear energy must be thoroughly considered, and all risks must be fully mitigated before the decision is made. Otherwise, the outcomes could be detrimental to both the economy and national security.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
He asks Tiit Maran how much more time he wants.
Tiit Maran
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Tiit Maran's speech is three minutes long.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Jüri Ratas asks that he be given three minutes.
Tiit Maran
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Tiit Maran stresses that the decision concerning nuclear energy should not be rushed or made without analysis. He calls for the current process to be stopped, a thorough analysis to be performed, and a suitable, future-looking decision to be reached.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
He/She thanks [the previous speaker] and now invites Kalle Grünthal to the Riigikogu podium to speak.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Grünthal recounts incidents from Robert Vaidlo's book "Peeter Poligon on the Battlefield," where Peeter Poligon tries to look over the edge of a trench on the front line using binoculars. He is stopped by soldiers who look Kazakh, who tell him "nelzja" (don't) and later also "snaiper" (sniper), causing him to cautiously back off. The officer subsequently falls, and finally, he recalls the question he posed to Igor Taro about Chernobyl, to which Igor replied: "It is a city in Ukraine."
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Vice-Chairman Jüri Ratas asked with just one word: "How much?" thereby referring to the question of the sum or magnitude.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Three minutes have been allocated for the speech.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas confirms that the three are present.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kalle Grünthal emphasizes that the adoption of nuclear energy in Estonia is dangerous and pointless, arguing that the examples of Chernobyl and Fukushima demonstrate that a large portion of Estonian land would become unusable, and the project would only generate profits for foreign corporations and lead to higher electricity prices; therefore, he does not support the bill.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas called Rain Epler to the rostrum. The status of the EKRE member was discussed, and Epler confirmed himself as the representative of the faction.
Rain Epler
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Rain Epler confirmed that he is still a member of EKRE and supports the introduction of nuclear energy with majority state ownership, believing that clear national control and addressing concerns would increase public support.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas invited Mart Maastik to the Riigikogu rostrum on behalf of the Isamaa faction.
Mart Maastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Maastik emphasizes that the deployment of nuclear energy in Estonia must only proceed with a proper energy management development plan and a thorough analysis, taking into account the necessity, costs, and environmental impacts. Furthermore, he/she warns against rushing and lobbying, as the current proposals could result in overproduction and substantial fixed charges appearing on consumers' electricity bills.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
He is talking about going to Jordan.
Mart Maastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Mart Maastik apologized for the decision related to Jordan, saying that it has cost us over 100 million, and that the same decision was also made concerning Auvere. He then requested an extension.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
The speech focused on the question, "How much?"
Mart Maastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
He expresses a desire to do as much as possible.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas announces that 180 seconds are allotted for the speech.
Mart Maastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Mart Maastik emphasizes that before making the decision to commission a nuclear power plant, thorough preparation must be done: gather baseline data, ensure adequate electricity supply and a clear energy policy, and avoid overproduction and irresponsible decisions.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas invited Andres Sutt to the podium, initially assuming he was a member of the Reform Party. However, that proved incorrect, and the speaker is Riigikogu member Andres Sutt.
Andres Sutt
AI Summary
Andres Sutt emphasized that this decision creates the opportunity for a nuclear energy ecosystem to emerge in Estonia, affirming the necessity of a diversified energy portfolio, and stressing that nuclear energy is not an alternative to renewables—rather, both are essential. He noted that this involves thorough preparation, including the engagement of international experts and the establishment of a legal framework. Examples were cited regarding investments in the decarbonization of maritime transport and the potential of hydrogen derivatives, concluding with a call to support the draft bill.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
The Deputy Speaker now calls upon Züleyxa Izmailova to the Riigikogu rostrum.
Züleyxa Izmailova
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Züleyxa Izmailova criticizes the quality of the bill's handling, citing deficiencies in engagement and the spread of misinformation. She questions why preparations for a nuclear power plant should be made in the first place, highlights the rising costs and limited resources, and urges that the bill not be supported.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas invited Toomas Uibo, the representative of the Eesti 200 faction, to the podium, and Uibo requested additional time, for which he was granted eight minutes.
Toomas Uibo
Profiling Eesti 200 fraktsioonAI Summary
Toomas Uibo stated that Estonia is on the verge of a historical moment: not by immediately building a nuclear power plant, but rather by paving the way for the development of nuclear energy and establishing a clear legal framework that would allow us to consider its use in the future, taking into account its economic, environmental, and security concerns, as well as its wide range of applications.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas called Liisa-Ly Pakosta to the podium, and Liisa-Ly Pakosta requested an extension, asking for eight minutes.
Liisa-Ly Pakosta
AI Summary
Liisa-Ly Pakosta said that the energy sector development plan must be finalized in the first half of next year, and before deciding on nuclear energy, a thorough analysis of usage demand and the legal framework must be conducted, and the most economical and environmentally friendly solution must be chosen, while avoiding rushing and the creation of unnecessary costs.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Speaker invited Tiit Maran to the Riigikogu rostrum and confirmed that Maran now wished to take the floor personally.
Tiit Maran
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Tiit Maran emphasizes that there are two opposing camps regarding the issue of nuclear energy, and before a decision can be made, very thorough initial data and suitable material are required in order to reach a firm conclusion that would be appropriate for both us and the future. For this reason, the processing of the decision must be paused and revisited once sufficient material is available.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The speaker thanks everyone and invites Mario Kadastik to the Riigikogu podium, noting that they are doing so on their own behalf.
Mario Kadastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
The speaker emphasizes that we are not making a final decision on the nuclear power plant; instead, we are creating the legal framework and organizing the necessary studies. The next step will be the Nuclear Energy Safety Act, which is expected to be adopted in 2026. Furthermore, for the sake of climate neutrality and energy security, all energy sources, including nuclear energy, must be taken into consideration.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Chairman thanks the previous speaker and invites Andrei Korobeinik to the Riigikogu rostrum next.
Andrei Korobeinik
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Andrei Korobeinik expresses three main points: he understands the concerns related to procedural rules and hopes that all those who acted improperly will face consequences; he is convinced that lobbying rules must be made more transparent and that interests should be disclosed through declarations; and he emphasizes that the draft bill does not immediately mandate the construction of a nuclear power plant, but rather creates the possibility for it, and he hopes for broader support for the measure.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The speaker thanks the audience and invites Lauri Laats to the Riigikogu podium to speak next.
Lauri Laats
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Lauri Laats emphasized that before moving forward with the issue of nuclear energy, thorough socio-economic analyses must be conducted, along with a clear assessment of whether it is cost-effective for taxpayers and consumers, and therefore he cannot support the bill.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Chairman gives thanks, invites Toomas Uibo to the Riigikogu podium, and explains that the speech was delivered on behalf of the faction, and that there is a desire to speak on his own behalf.
Toomas Uibo
Profiling Eesti 200 fraktsioonAI Summary
Toomas Uibo stated that the finalized study in the ENMAK report confirms that nuclear energy is clearly the more favorable option in Estonia's energy mix. He noted that although the cost of regulations is standard and the development is phased, expenditures will be made according to the needs of market participants, and a large portion of the permit processing costs will be covered by the investor, provided the state may require advance payments before the procedures commence.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Chairman thanks the previous speaker and invites Aivar Kok to the Riigikogu rostrum, clarifying whether his address will be delivered on behalf of the parliamentary group or in a personal capacity.
Aivar Kokk
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
He emphasizes that he is speaking first and foremost on his own behalf.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar asks Aivar Koki to act on his behalf.
Aivar Kokk
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Aivar Kokk asserts that Estonia will be able to cover its energy demand using renewables by 2030. However, dispatchable power will still rely on oil shale energy. Crucial for developing this sector is promoting networks and interconnectors (like Estlink), as well as maintaining a stable price for CO2 quotas.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar asks for three minutes of extra time.
Aivar Kokk
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Discussing the topic of nuclear energy, Aivar Kokk suggests that Estonia could participate in Finland's next nuclear power plant in the future and secure its own electricity supply. However, he stresses the need for thorough analyses, detailed risk and cost assessments, and the resolution of waste and security issues before making any major investments.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The message, "Your time!" means that now is your time to act.
Aivar Kokk
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
The Riigikogu elections are the time to decide and clearly articulate in the campaigns who supports nuclear power and who opposes it, and the voter will then cast their vote.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar calls on Liisa-Ly Pakosta to give a reply and requests that she deliver her address immediately.
Liisa-Ly Pakosta
AI Summary
Liisa-Ly Pakosta emphasizes that the example involving the trolls demonstrates how taxpayer money should only be used for essential and necessary things, and a nuclear experiment cannot just be shut down so easily, because nuclear energy projects are long-term, with a payback period of approximately 80–100 years.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Chairman called Mart Maastik to the podium, noting that he had previously spoken on behalf of the faction and now wished to speak personally.
Mart Maastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Mart Maastik states that although some people are impatient and are already eager to go home, we need to bring in additional aspects. The discussion isn't solely about establishing a legal framework, and we shouldn't close the door if permission is ultimately withheld.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar offered an apology, noting that the noise in the hall was so loud that the speaker could not be heard, and requested that the speaker be allowed to deliver their address.
Mart Maastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Maastik states that the claim—that without permission to create a legal framework, the doors to nuclear energy will be closed and progress cannot be made—is not true, because approximately 73 million has been planned from the state budget for expenditures over a 9–11 year period. Added to this are up to 54 million in costs for developing rescue capabilities, plus an annual 6.5 million during the nuclear power plant operation phase. We lack an energy development plan, and our neighbors are increasing wind energy production (Finland is tripling, Lithuania is quintupling, Estonia is increasing sevenfold), meaning there will be nobody to sell the overproduced energy to. Lobbying groups, including Utilitas and Fermi Energia, were present at the joint committee session and stated that nuclear energy is not necessary. Establishing offshore wind farms requires 3 billion euros in subsidies and 2 billion for connections over 20 years, plus 3 billion in additional costs for Rail Baltic. All of this money must be paid by the taxpayers, which will deepen the state budget deficit and jeopardize future investments.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar thanked the participants, announced that the list of speakers was closed and the discussions had ended, and noted that before proceeding, there were two procedural matters regarding the conduct of the session, asking Tiit Maran to take the floor.
Tiit Maran
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Tiit Maran asks whether it is acceptable within the chamber to present claims that do not correspond to reality, and points out that nuclear energy is not the cheapest form of energy and can be many times more expensive than offshore wind power.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Chairman emphasizes that members of the Riigikogu are free in their speech and expression, and therefore the session chair cannot intervene or pass judgment on what they have said or how they have formulated the issue, and proceeds to the next procedural question.
Andrei Korobeinik
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Korobeinik stated that such evaluative claims are difficult to assess, and the assertion that no other country has joined the nuclear club this century is factually false. He then asked how a completely false statement would be corrected in the transcript, given that millions are watching and must not be misled.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar confirms that the verbatim record cannot be corrected retroactively. The proceedings then move forward to the final vote on Bill 431, and five amendment proposals are reviewed, the first of which was submitted by Mart Maastik. The leading committee's position is to partially accept Amendment Proposal No. 5.
Mart Maastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Mart Maastik invites you to vote for it.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
We now proceed to the review of the amendments to Draft Bill 431. I am putting Amendment No. 1 to a vote; the leading committee’s position is to partially accept it. Following this, Amendment No. 5 will also be reviewed. Please state your position and cast your vote.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The motion received 27 votes in favor, 42 against, and 1 abstention, meaning it did not gain support; this was followed by amendment proposal No. 2 from the EKRE faction. The leading committee's position is to partially take it into account, and the recommendation is to consider amendment proposal No. 5.
Helle-Moonika Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
We wish to vote on this amendment because the commission's substantive proposal completely changes the content that we actually desire.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar noted that the situation was clear, and Rain Epler asked a question regarding the procedure for conducting the session.
Rain Epler
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
He points out that this is a purely procedural matter, and asks what exactly is being voted on—the committee’s proposal or the amendment.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Chairman announces that Amendment Proposal No. 2, submitted by the EKRE faction, will be put to a vote, and the position of the lead committee is to partially accept it.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The motion received 11 votes in favor, 41 votes against, and zero abstentions. Consequently, it failed to gain support. We now move to Amendment Proposal No. 3, which has been submitted by 19 members of the Riigikogu, and the leading committee is of the opinion that it should be considered on its merits.
Priit Lomp
AI Summary
He said that the amendment proposed by 19 deputies was not the one that had been considered, and asked them to vote for a very good amendment.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Speaker Lauri Hussar called his colleagues to a vote on Amendment No. 3, which had been submitted by 19 members of the Riigikogu.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The motion received 27 votes in favor, 40 against, and there were no abstentions. Before the final vote, the proposal to suspend the second reading of Riigikogu Resolution Draft 431, titled "Supporting the Introduction of Nuclear Energy in Estonia," submitted by 55 members of the Social Democratic Party faction, will be put to a vote.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The motion to adjourn received 26 votes in favor, 40 against, and no abstentions, thus failing to gain support; the lead committee recommended holding the final vote on Draft Bill 431 and proceeding with its preparation; and the Riigikogu put to a vote the draft resolution of the Riigikogu, "Supporting the Introduction of Nuclear Energy in Estonia," submitted by 55 members of the Riigikogu.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Bill 431 received 41 votes in favor, 25 against, and 2 abstentions, and Erkki Keldo raised a question regarding the procedure for conducting the session.
Erkki Keldo
AI Summary
Erkki Keldo is asking, concerning the bill that underwent two readings, how it was possible that the motion for suspension was voted on first, followed only then by the bill itself, and which specific section governs this procedure, and whether the action taken was correct.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar explained that it is possible to propose the discontinuation of a bill during the second reading, pursuant to Section 107 of the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act, and confirmed that Bill 431 had been adopted.