By Plenary Sessions: Mario Kadastik

The primary criticism is aimed at EKRE, criticizing their choice of experts and the low quality of the debate. The criticism is sharp, accusing opponents of presenting incorrect facts and prioritizing political interests (launching the local government election program) over national interests. Opposition to pro-Russian sentiment is particularly intense, calling Russia a "terrorist state" and declaring the use of any Russian technology "off limits."

Strong criticism was directed at the Isamaa faction (Urmas Reinsalu) and Rain Epler, accusing them of employing populist rhetoric, using false figures (e.g., 120 million), and making mathematical errors. The speaker criticized Isamaa’s proposal regarding the financing of island services, arguing that it would be unfair to consumers. The speaker noted ironically that Isamaa is attempting to derail a bill specifically intended to keep the oil shale industry viable.

The main confrontation is with Mart Maastik (Isamaa), whose claims regarding the unrealistic nature of ENMAK inputs and the cheapness of oil shale electricity are systematically refuted using data from Enefit Power and market prices. The criticism is directed against political objectives (lowering the target level) and economic misconceptions, and is not personal.

The main criticism is aimed at the disseminators of misinformation, who are accused of incorrectly interpreting the law. Specifically, "Forus taxi drivers" are named as an unreliable source of primary information, whose opinions are advised to be disregarded.

The opponents' stance is sharply criticized as inciting ignorance and fear, given that the bill's proponents rely on unfounded claims about the dangers of infrasound. The criticism targets the bill's fundamental lack of substance, as there are no proven causal links between infrasound and health risks. It refutes the opposing side's analogies (e.g., sonic weapons, radiation, and carbon monoxide).