Agenda Profile: Evelin Poolamets
Second reading of the draft law amending the Electricity Market Act (556 SE)
2025-05-07
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
Political Position
The political stance is firmly opposed to Draft Bill 556 SE, arguing that it was drafted to benefit producers rather than consumers. The key concerns revolve around the financial burden placed on consumers through connection and network fees, and criticism of the green transition objectives established in Brussels. This position is strongly value-driven, highlighting that all benefits accrue to producers and network operators. The policy framework is heavily focused on consumer protection and exposing economic irrationality.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise in the operation of the electricity market (the Nord Pool exchange), renewable energy tariffs, and investments in grid infrastructure. Technical terms such as "connection fee methodology" and "network capacity" are employed, and reference is made to statistical data concerning Estonia's average electricity consumption (1,000 megawatts). Doubts are also raised regarding the economic rationale of the explanatory memorandum, particularly concerning the decrease in renewable energy prices.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is sharp, skeptical, and confrontational, accusing the rapporteur of spinning "hot air" and lying ("a lie has short legs"). Numerous rhetorical questions and strong condemnations ("What a joke!") are employed to emphasize the unfairness of the draft bill. It appeals both to logic (principles of the market economy) and to emotions, stressing that the consumer ultimately pays for all the costs.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The pattern of activity is linked to active participation in the Riigikogu session on 2025-05-07, by repeatedly asking questions to the rapporteur and delivering a closing speech opposing the draft bill. The speaker begins with questions regarding the illogical nature of the explanatory memorandum and concludes with thorough political opposition.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main opponents are the bill's proponents and renewable energy producers, who are accused of enriching themselves at the expense of consumers and promoting speculative projects. The criticism is strong and politically charged, claiming that illogical and incorrect data are being presented. The opposition is absolute, given that the bill "cannot be supported."
4 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The style of cooperation demonstrates internal consistency, approvingly referencing colleague Rain Epler's earlier position ("as Rain Epler also said here"). However, communication with the presenter is confrontational and uncompromising. There are no references to broad-based or cross-party cooperation.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The regional focus is illustrated with specific examples of the impact of infrastructure development, mentioning Lääne-Virumaa (the density of wind farms and long grid connection distances). Põltsamaa municipality is also cited as an example regarding the threat letter from Utilitas Wind, highlighting the potential damage to local governments.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Economic views lean heavily toward consumer protection, criticizing incentives directed at producers and speculative investments. It is stressed that all costs (network investments, connection fees) are ultimately borne by the consumer, damaging the Estonian economy and people's welfare. Investments that will no longer be used in the future due to nuclear power plants are also criticized.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Not enough data.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is currently centered on opposing the draft legislation (Bill 556 SE) to amend the Electricity Market Act. The speaker is a staunch opponent of the bill, concentrating specifically on the proposed changes concerning the methodology for connection fees, the pass-through calculation of network investments, and the flexibility granted to producers regarding deadlines. The ultimate goal is to prevent the adoption of this law, which would ease the regulatory burden on producers.
4 Speeches Analyzed