Session Profile: Lauri Laats

As a member of the Estonian parliament, he/she is a strong voice in the opposition regarding energy policy: he/she firmly opposes the draft legislation aimed at accelerating investments in offshore wind farms and other renewable energy projects, arguing that it undermines consumer interests and economic viability. He/she stresses that the priority must be affordable electricity and favors nationwide onshore wind and solar solutions over offshore installations. Furthermore, he/she highlights the need for a clear national policy concerning CO2 emissions from oil shale and the protection of existing jobs, viewing this as key to long-term economic stabilization. This stance reflects a balance between economic and regional/cultural considerations, focusing on maintaining stable consumer prices and employment levels.

Economic analyses of the energy market, including feasibility and consumer burden: emphasizes the costs associated with transmission lines, the impact of subsidies on the end-user, and the importance of robust economic calculations. It takes into account the social and environmental impacts of nature and fishing activities, and argues for the synergistic role of both green and fossil energy. It criticizes the rapid acceleration of offshore wind farm development, citing the need for clear and measurable indicators.

The tone is critical and ultimately argument-oriented. It employs rhetorical questions and emotional references (such as “running roughshod over public interest” and “the fairy tale that cheap electricity is coming”). The text’s structure is analytical, but it also includes sympathetic examples (fishermen, island communities) and draws attention to the procedural aspect (pauses, voting).

Actively participated in the plenary sessions on 18.09.2024, presenting several comments within the same context, and highlighted the need for additional time (three minutes) and a floor vote. Repeatedly referenced the coordination cycle and the divergence of discussions, demonstrating long-term persistence on the energy topic.

A significant opposing position regarding the draft law: A member of the Centre Party does not support the allocation of funds to offshore wind farms and rapid subsidies, emphasizing that end consumers would bear the greatest burden. He is critical of the state's plan, stressing the need for economic sensibility and the assurance of cheap electricity; he shows aversion toward green schemes and offshore wind turbines, particularly those located near islands.

Critical and largely oppositional regarding cooperation. It points to the coordination round and differing opinions, but does not demonstrate a broad willingness to compromise. Recommendations and proposed amendments are viewed through the context of assessments and the preservation of one's own decision.

Focus on Regional Impact at Sea and on Islands: emphasizes the interests of island residents and fishermen who may lose or see changes to their jobs due to offshore wind farms. It notes the importance of protecting the marine environment and fisheries, and intensifies focus on local communities.

Focusing on economic factors, he emphasizes the price of electricity for consumers, the utilization of state and residents' funds, and the increasing burden of grid fees. He is skeptical of grants and state subsidies, arguing that the offshore wind project requires massive investments that will ultimately be paid for by the end consumer. He recommends an alternative: developing onshore wind and solar parks, which are more economically viable.

It largely champions regional and community interests: expressing concern about the sustainability of fishing and maritime activities and the livelihoods of island residents; emphasizing the need to balance nature conservation with environmental impacts; and protecting jobs in the oil shale sector through the ongoing debate surrounding CO2 emissions.

The legislative focus is on clarifying the energy bill: [The actor] opposes the bill's rapid adoption, emphasizes the need for a thorough economic assessment, and wishes to see amendments and additional time (e.g., Amendment No. 5) before the vote. He/She attempts to steer the discussion during the consultation rounds toward specific, economically sensible solutions, rather than multi-party political reciprocity.