Session Profile: Lauri Laats

The core position is a critical view of the government’s energy policy and the speed of the green transition. He/She stresses the need to ensure energy security and maintain affordable electricity, and is strongly opposed to the sale of the Kiisa power plant; emphasizing that a holistic perspective and realistic pricing are essential. He/She highlights the impact of the trust deficit on policy and wishes to examine the entire subject broadly, rather than using a single draft to address only certain aspects. He/She believes that the shaping of the green transition must take into account economic, social, and technical aspects, and should not be rushed.

Demonstrates a grasp of energy policy and economics: referencing oil shale reserves, the operational requirements and depreciation challenges of boilers, and the necessity of evaluating the actual operational impact. It cites the experiences of Sweden, the UK, Germany, and Finland regarding the effects of the green transition, employing terminology like desynchronization and island operation to highlight the complexity of the debate.

The tone is critical and persuasive: it employs emotional arguments supported by fact-based examples, using rhetorical questions and forceful exclamations to project a powerful image. The texts often contain a touch of drama, while simultaneously remaining concrete and analytical. The style is formal, yet sharp and direct, characteristic of the event.

Actively participated in the plenary session and delivered multiple addresses on the same day (23.04.2025), citing colleagues and government decisions. Regularly utilizes the context of national and international examples and demonstrates consistent attention to energy policy.

The primary criticism is directed at the right-wing/government's energy policy and the pace of the green transition. This includes criticism of Draft 555 and its impact on taxpayers, energy prices, and the country's credibility. He/She emphasizes the need for a more comprehensive and realistic approach and is strongly opposed to the current coordinated plans, which could lead to prohibitive costs and uncertainty.

The tone is critical of the coalition, with critical references made to the decisions of the coalition partners. While not clearly presenting offers of cooperation, the need for a comprehensive and rational approach is emphasized. Cooperation is viewed more as a challenge to the coalition's decisions than as genuine, broad-based collaboration.

A nationally focused discussion without specific regional emphasis; it concentrates on Estonian energy policy, the context of the European Union, and international case studies. Specific regional projects are addressed only minimally.

Economically, the criticism is primarily focused on emphasizing the burden on the taxpayer, the increasingly costly measures of the green transition, and potential financial losses. The text highlights the example of Sweden's seven-year loss experience with wind farms and argues that support mechanisms could increase both costs and the taxpayer's burden.

This addresses social issues within the context of end-of-life declarations, raising discussion regarding age limits and the necessary temporal framework, and examining society's perception of this law. It does not express clear advocacy, but rather raises questions and highlights the need for further research.

The focus is on two main legislative topics: Bill 555, which forms the basis of energy policy, and the draft bill concerning end-of-life declarations of intent. It is stressed that the current solutions are not working in reality, and there is a call to review and consider the broader impact and the distribution of costs, which will lead to a better and more balanced discussion.