Reform Party MP Mario Kadastik sees nuclear energy as a lifeline for the energy sector of Estonia, while Social Democrat Jevgeni Ossinovski warned of a "billion-euro trap" and the burning of taxpayers' money. The Estonian Conservative People's Party is calling for a referendum on the issue.

Minister of Energy and Environment Andres Sutt stressed that the bill creates the necessary legal framework for building a nuclear power plant but does not yet constitute a final decision to proceed with construction. Sutt confirmed the state does not plan to be the lead investor but left the door open to taking a minority stake to ensure state oversight and information flow.

"Whether that should be one, five or 10 percent is a matter of taste," noted Kadastik, presenting the bill on behalf of the Economic Affairs Committee.

At present, discussions around nuclear energy focus on two modular reactors with a total capacity of 600 megawatts. According to company Fermi Energia, which has already initiated the special planning process, such a plant would cost around €3.3–3.4 billion, though depending on conditions, the figure could rise to €4–4.5 billion.

At the heart of the debate is how to ensure controllable electricity production in Estonia at a time when oil shale plants are being shut down, while wind and solar are unable to provide stable baseload power 24 hours a day.

Social Democrats are the most skeptical

Speaking on behalf of the Social Democratic faction, Riina Sikkut's main criticism was that the government has become a "free lawyer" for a specific developer, Fermi Energia, burdening the state budget with preparations for a plant that no one has yet decided to build.

"Are there other companies or sectors where the state has decided to cover fixed costs for years, invest thousands of working hours, and burden public institutions just to create opportunities for the private sector? Will we also start building cables for data centers or other solutions in the hope that a private company will come?" Sikkut asked.

The Social Democrats' main energy spokesperson is party vice-chair Ossinovski, who argues that Estonia does not need a nuclear power plant and that the millions spent on preparations could be avoided. In his view, nuclear power is economically unviable, as the low cost of renewable energy drives market prices down, leaving a nuclear plant with a production cost of €100 per megawatt-hour struggling to compete.

"Why would any consumer buy at €100 when the market price is €10 most of the time? That would require massive subsidies," Ossinovski said.

A similar position was expressed by his colleague Anti Allas: "A few days ago, we met with representatives of Fermi Energia. They clearly said that both guarantees and a floor-and-ceiling price system are needed."

In other words, both investment guarantees and subsequent support schemes would be required.

Ossinovski warned that pouring in ever more millions could lead Estonia into a situation where additional funding keeps being committed to an increasingly complex project: "As Estonian literary classics say: now that so much loss has already been incurred, it cannot be abandoned halfway. Every step taken toward nuclear energy sinks additional taxpayer millions into this project."

Reform supporting plant development

The Reform Party, however, is leaning toward supporting a nuclear plant. A long-time advocate of nuclear energy, Kadastik argued that wind energy lobbyists spread misconceptions and manipulate facts. According to him, a nuclear plant would benefit Estonia even before producing its first kilowatt-hour.

"Already somewhere halfway through the construction phase, the nuclear plant would have long since turned into a strongly positive project for the state," Kadastik explained, referring primarily to preparatory work funded by the state, which consumes millions of euros but is returned through taxes from construction activities.

Kadastik also criticized a recent Danish study claiming that nuclear-generated electricity is the most expensive.

"In that Danish study, the cost of building the plant was put at €11 billion, which is absurdly high and based on a conservative, different type of technology. Such studies should be taken with a grain of salt," he said.

According to Kadastik, Finland is even considering nuclear plants that can provide district heating. "A nuclear plant is essentially a method for boiling water — it's like a small electric boiler, just efficient, long-term, and energy-intensive," he emphasized.

Kadastik also argued that small modular reactors would never replicate a disaster like Chernobyl: "If the reactor shuts down for any reason, it cools down. A Fukushima-type scenario is physically impossible here."

EKRE calls for a referendum

The EKRE faction has historically supported nuclear energy but insists that the decision must be made by the people, not by the government behind closed doors.

EKRE MP Rene Kokk asked Sutt: "Can you assure the Estonian people here that before this decision is made, we will properly put it to a referendum? Unfortunately, Estonia's energy policy has for too long been stuck in green ideology and the issue of wind turbines. Common sense would suggest that the capacity to produce electricity from oil shale should also be kept alive."

In a referendum held in Lithuania 20 years ago, voters decided they did not want a new nuclear power plant in the country, and this method of electricity generation has since been off the table there.

Isamaa criticizes lack of clear strategy

According to the Isamaa faction, the state is trying to develop too many costly directions at once without fully analyzing any of them.

Isamaa MP Mart Maastik said Estonia lacks a coherent and well-thought-out energy policy. "We are doing everything. We are developing offshore wind farms and now again planning hundreds of additional turbines. Then we are building pumped hydro storage and gas plants."

Maastik also raised the fundamental question of profitability: "Wouldn't it make sense to first clarify profitability before starting to spend?" He pointed out that nuclear power is expensive and may require state subsidies, while the average electricity price is already lower today.

Center Party backs oil shale

Center Party MP Aleksei Jevgrafov from Ida-Viru County, meanwhile, returned to the issue of oil shale.

"Attempts are often made to portray oil shale energy as completely hopeless and economically pointless. But according to companies that build power plants, a modern 300-MW unit based on CFB technology could cost around €280 million. This means that building 600 MW of controllable generation capacity could cost about €560 million. This is significantly less than the figures often mentioned in Estonia's public debate. Moreover, oil shale is Estonia's own natural resource, which ensures energy security and independence from imported fuels," Jevgrafov said.

He continued: "How is it possible that the Reform Party, the Social Democrats, and Eesti 200 were ready to spend €2.6 billion on subsidies for offshore wind farms, yet claim that investing €550 million in controllable domestic electricity production is not possible? This is not logical."

At the end of the debate, independent MP Peeter Ernits summed up the situation humorously: "The baby isn't even born yet, and we're already discussing details like its gender and whether it will wear high heels. At this stage, we are mainly opening the birth canal."

Despite the disagreements and strong skepticism from the Social Democrats, the bill passed its first reading. The deadline for submitting amendments for the second reading is April 30, 2026.

--

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