The Estonian government has left the issue of supporting wind farms hanging and shifted the decision-making burden onto local governments. Although the coalition agreement promised a wind energy auction in the third quarter of this year, the deadline has long passed and no new date has been set.

Minister of Climate and Environment Andres Sutt (Reform) admitted to ERR that the government has no idea when the next reverse auction might take place. According to him, the first step is to identify which municipalities are willing to allow wind energy development in their areas and only then decide on the next steps. In reality, instead of endlessly dragging its feet, the government should have ended support for wind energy altogether.

The current situation means that instead of a nationwide energy policy, decision-making has shifted to the level of local disputes. Wind energy development has become a matter of local politics rather than national strategy. Uncertainty reigns in place of clarity and stability. Local governments are now caught between the expectations of developers, communities and the state.

Wind energy developers are demanding the launch of new planning processes, even though Estonia's electricity market is already oversaturated with wind and solar power. On windy and sunny days, prices drop into negative territory, meaning producers must be paid to generate electricity.

Such a system is neither economically sustainable nor fair. The more renewable energy is added to the market, the more expensive electricity becomes for consumers. The renewable energy sector is already mature enough to operate without state subsidies. If wind energy development cannot survive without government aid, we must ask whose interests these schemes actually serve.

Estonia's energy policy needs sober thinking and a fair distribution of responsibility. In addition to ending subsidies, it's time to stop pushing the cost of wind turbine grid connections and network investments onto consumers. Consumers have no say in where developers erect their turbines, whether in the middle of a bog or on the edge of a village. If developers had to cover those costs in full, they would be motivated to build generation capacity closer to consumption centers, such as industrial zones and urban areas. This would reduce transmission losses, lighten the load on the grid, lower construction costs and offer a more sensible solution for the entire energy system.

So-called cheap green energy has instead brought with it two new taxes. Starting in January 2026, a balancing capacity fee of €3.73 per megawatt-hour will be introduced, to be paid by both producers and consumers. Another new charge is the security of supply fee, added to electricity transmission bills, which is intended to cover the cost of maintaining dispatchable power capacity during periods when wind and solar output is low or nonexistent.

To compensate for calm or cloudy weather, the system must constantly maintain reserve capacity — yet the costs are unfairly placed on consumers. These fees are not tied to consumer behavior; they are a direct consequence of the instability of renewable energy. Just as we don't pay a separate fee at the store to keep the shelves stocked, we shouldn't be paying extra to keep energy in reserve.

This is effectively double taxation: consumers already pay a renewable energy fee that subsidizes the very same system. Under the label of cheap electricity, multiple layers of cost are extracted from consumers through renewable energy fees, environmental impacts, grid investments, frequency reserves and security of supply charges.

Estonia's energy policy demands clear-headed and just decisions. The green transition must not mean endless subsidies and shifting costs onto the shoulders of consumers. Estonia doesn't have to blindly follow Brussels' directives but should instead use its existing resources, including oil shale and biogas, responsibly and with technological intelligence.

A sustainable solution does not lie in slogans but in research and development that makes existing energy production more efficient and cleaner. Only then can we speak of a truly sustainable green transition that serves both the economy and the people. The true cost of current solutions is extremely high — not just financially, but in terms of Estonia's economic competitiveness and people's quality of life.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!