Estonia has responded to energy security concerns related to a hostile Russia by supporting uncompetitive oil shale power plants located no more than 2 km from the Russian border. How did this policy come to appear as necessary and legitimate, and what can this tell us about the politics of phasing out fossil fuels in our time of geopolitical instability? This article uses discursive policy analysis to analyze 21 interviews with key Estonian experts and decision makers and 27 policy documents. It traces a shift that has unfolded in Estonian energy policy discourse between 2015 and 2024, from placing faith in market-based and common EU policies towards emphasizing state interventions to secure domestic fossil capacities. The article explores how the interplay between this shift and the prevalence of a neoliberal free-market rationality has ruled out alternative ways of providing energy security and portrayed state support to oil shale power as unfortunate but necessary. It explains how fossil subsidies have been reconciled with free-market neoliberalism, and argues that the result is a contradictory approach to energy security that places faith in a single large oil shale complex located right on the border with Russia. Finally, it explores the wider implications of neoliberalism for energy politics in our time of geopolitical instability, arguing that it can empower incumbent industries and restrict the ability of states to act strategically and preemptively, thereby locking them in a state of continued crisis management where fossil subsidies appear as the only option for providing energy security.
Hugo Faber (Mon,) studied this question.