Agenda Profile: Lauri Laats

It supports the expression of the people's viewpoint on the oil shale issue and calls for a broad public discussion and a mandate from the people. It is critical of the government's decision, which sets the goal of phasing out oil shale use no later than 2040, and emphasizes energy security and worker protection in the interests of national security and the economy. It describes its position as policy- and value-driven, seeking broad consensus through compromises achieved via a national referendum.

It refers to the core processes of ENMAK (Estonian National Development Plan for the Energy Sector) and the Recovery and Resilience Plan, as well as topics concerning energy sector planning. It presents specific figures (14–18 billion EUR in investments, 15 vs 17 cents/kWh), mentions EstLink and Western guidelines, and technologies related to CO2 management. Furthermore, it highlights criticism regarding the costs of the green transition and the burden on consumers, utilizing scientific reference points (e.g., Hamburg forecasts and the tools outlined in ENMAK).

The defining characteristics include a rapid, emotional, and somewhat provocative tone. It blends emotional rhetoric with facts and figures, widely employing motifs related to the populace and security, alongside direct criticism of the government. It utilizes rhetorical techniques (such as captivating questions, calls for public participation, and emphasizing a personal stance) and seeks to frame the topics within a broader, action-oriented discussion.

On 13.05.2025, during the Riigikogu session, he/she spoke repeatedly, delivering numerous addresses throughout the day. He/She emphasizes the necessity of a referendum and the possibility of amending ENMAK. He/She expresses a readiness to utilize snap elections and the opportunity to secure a popular mandate, referencing information sessions and debates, and the intention to escalate the discussion to bring it directly to the public.

Opposed to the government's energy policy, it asserts that the government lacks a mandate and the public does not trust the coalition. It criticizes the pace and expenditures of the green transition, emphasizes the necessity of consulting the public will, and is prepared to restore democratic debate (via referendum) and implement changes to ENMAK (Estonian National Energy and Climate Plan). It stands firmly against the coalition's current direction and is ready to abandon broad cooperation if it does not incorporate the will of the people.

The speaker discusses broad-based cooperation and the willingness to involve the coalition much more extensively. He emphasizes the necessity of securing a couple of deputies from the coalition and reaching a mutual compromise concerning the amendment of ENMAK under the ENS provisions. He aims to bring the debate closer to the general public and sees an opportunity to engage with the coalition via the cooperation platform, provided common ground can be established.

The focus is notably on the Ida-Virumaa and Narva region; it highlights the securing of livelihoods and job protection for the people there, the rise in heating prices, and the worries of local residents. It stresses the regional impact and the desire to guarantee energy supply and employment specifically in those areas.

It focuses concisely on the issues of achieving economic balance during the final green energy transition. It highlights the size of the necessary investments (14–18 billion), the potential rise in tariffs (15–17 cents/kWh), and the uncertainty surrounding the actual costs. It addresses how the energy transition affects consumers and systemic crises (such as trading with Latvia, etc.), and emphasizes that continuing oil shale usage can secure jobs and economic activity, whereas expenditures directed toward the green transition may increase costs and burden the state budget. It also mentions the impacts on the state budget: approximately 300 million in the form of taxes and 2.6 billion in the case of offshore wind farms, which symbolizes the economic consequences of these choices.

The focus is on social aspects, such as maintaining employment in Ida-Virumaa, volatility in heating prices, and overall population welfare. It stresses that the oil shale sector ensures community sustainability, and shutting it down could worsen living standards and exacerbate regional inequality. It underscores the importance of public well-being and social stability within the context of national security.

The primary objective is organizing a national referendum on the oil shale issue and implementing amendments to ENMAK (Estonian National Development Plan for the Energy Sector); it offers alternatives, such as providing minor relief to the sector contingent on CO2 certification, and emphasizes the legitimacy of decisions achieved through snap elections or a popular mandate. The first reading of Bill 581 OE is highlighted, along with the necessity of broadening the discussion to the public and ensuring parliamentary coordination. This demonstrates the intention to advance the referendum mechanism and reform ENMAK to involve a wider range of stakeholders and guarantee a sustainable energy grid policy.