Nacionalinė energetikos strategija: galimi pokyčiai strateginiuose tiksluose
MetadataShow full item record
Energy security is an integral part of national security, for this reason the role of the state to ensure the smooth functioning of the energy sector is very important. Regulation of the energy sector will never be left to the market laws, because economic and social well-being depends on it. One of the characteristics of the energy sector is its inertness, so it is indispensable the long-term planning and settings of development policies. The last National Energy Strategy (hereinafter – NES (2012)) was approved on the 26 th of June 2012, but the new National Energy Strategy Project (hereinafter - NESP) is ready. The guidelines of energy sector, which are determined by the state, are especially important for potential investors, as the construction of energy facilities require a very large initial investments and their service life can reach 50 years. Only the energy strategy, which is long-term, based on economic calculations, independent of the election results and maintaining the continuity of strategic goals can attract private investment in the energy sector. The aim of this article is to compare the framework and strategic objectives of current National Energy Strategy o with the Project of National Energy Strategy. The main objectives are: (i) to analyze the influence of stability of the energy strategies on the development of the energy sector; (ii) to compare the general provisions of NES (2012) with the general provisions of NESP; (iii) to compare the strategic objectives of NES (2012) with the strategic objectives NESP. It is likely that many discussions will be on NESP in political life and public space, so the comparative analysis and insight, which is made in this article, are relevant to today's life in Lithuania. NES (2012) and NESP apply the same strategic objectives in the energy sector, only NESP provide one additional objective - efficient use of energy. NESP differs from NES (2012) in their flexibility and multiple analysis of alternatives depending on the current situation. Meanwhile, NES (2012) observed that it can be only one correct way without any possible alternatives. It even very clearly indicates what damage will occur if Lithuania does not implement identified energy projects. Presumably, because of inflexible approach of NES (2012), identified strategic projects no longer meet today's realities.
- Straipsniai / Articles