Agenda Profile: Urmas Reinsalu

The political stance centers on sharp criticism of Kaja Kallas’s government, specifically citing the lack of vision in its energy policy and the prevalence of partisan horse-trading. The speaker supports integrating nuclear power into Estonia’s energy portfolio but insists on a comprehensive national strategy that guarantees both energy security and competitive electricity prices. They deem the government’s 100% renewable energy target utopian and unrealistic, arguing it will push Estonia into an energy deficit. The overall framework is primarily results-oriented, highlighting the government’s failure to deliver on the promises outlined in the coalition agreement.

The speaker demonstrates authority in the field of energy policy, utilizing technical terminology such as dispatchable capacity, capacity portfolio, and security of supply. They refer to the recommendations of rational energy experts and critically evaluate the government’s 100% renewable energy target. They are knowledgeable about specific projects and figures, including the 2 billion euro cost of offshore wind farms and the 4+4 TWh goal.

The rhetorical style is predominantly combative, critical, and ironic, employing dramatic language (e.g., "absurd situation," "a total farce"). The speaker uses sarcastic comparisons (e.g., "an Old Baskin Old Town Studio performance," "a brave samurai") to ridicule the government's actions. Although the speaker demands a logical and comprehensive approach, the presentation is charged with emotional criticism targeting the government's failures and omissions.

The speaker referred to a draft decision that had been submitted to parliament two months prior. This draft would have obliged the government to present a comprehensive solution, but it was voted down by the coalition. He/She also noted the absence of Climate Minister Michal from the forest owners' demonstration, emphasizing the minister's unavailability during crucial debates.

The primary adversaries are Kaja Kallas’s governing coalition, particularly the Reform Party and the Social Democratic Party. The criticism is intense, focusing on both procedural errors (such as the incorrect legal form of the draft bill, or the government 'hiding in the bushes' to avoid scrutiny) and political deficiencies (subsidizing offshore wind farms, and partisan horse-trading). He/She accuses the Reform Party of making concessions to the Social Democrats regarding the offshore wind farm project, and the Social Democrats of blocking nuclear energy topics.

The speaker calls for achieving a cross-party attitude of goodwill in parliament to pressure the government into providing a comprehensive solution. He views the draft decision currently under discussion as a platform for formulating the minimum expectations for the government regarding energy policy, although he criticizes its current form.

The focus is heavily on the national level, addressing issues of Estonian energy policy and economic competitiveness. The international dimension is also mentioned in connection with the European Commission's state aid approval and European Union regulations, as well as a comparison with Nordic prices.

Economic perspectives emphasize the urgent need to ensure the competitiveness of Estonian industry, which is currently lacking compared to Nordic prices. The speaker criticizes specific government decisions that burden taxpayers (e.g., 2 billion for offshore wind farms) and demands that the development of nuclear energy be subsidy-free.

Insufficient data

The legislative focus is aimed at obligating the government to present a comprehensive energy policy framework—a goal the faction had also sought to achieve with a previous draft resolution. The speaker is a critical opponent of the nuclear energy draft decision currently under discussion in its present form, demanding its "reworking" so that the government is tasked with presenting a holistic view, rather than regulating energy policy through piecemeal issues.