| Abstract [eng] |
Policy Change of the Lithuania's Heating Sector: the Empowerment of Competition or a Higher State Interference? 1997 marked a major reform of the Lithuania’s heating sector when it was separated from the joint stock company, divided into independent units and transferred to the municipalities. They not only gained the rights for independent management of the units but also took the responsibility for their performance. However, in the face of challenges (delays of modernization and conversion to biofuels, especially characterized by large cities) and rising consumers’ dissatisfaction, it was started to speak aloud about the need for restructure. Even though there was a clash of options, while reaching the decision, it was finalized in 2014 with a clear state interference to the heating sectors of Vilnius and Kaunas. The aim of this research was to explain the central level policy change for the above cities. This is a case study based on the theoretical basis for the analysis, developed for a research on priorities of Lithuania’s XV-th Government. Process tracing has been used in order to explain the policy change and the reasons behind it, while concentrating in the period of 2008-2015. Research has revealed three active coalitions: 1) for liberalization and empowerment of competition; 2) for a higher state interference; 3) conjunctural coalition representing the interest of the biggest market players’. In addition to process tracing, the research is based on over ten interviews with the sector actors, representatives of different bodies. The first hypothesis was confirmed as major external shock - drastically rising price of imported natural gas - has led to the increasing price of heat and customer dissatisfaction. However, during the period of XV Government the major change has not been reached due to low concentration of attention caused by lack of human resources and a high number of other major energy projects. This has changed with XVI Government stating heating sector reform as one of her major priorities. This enabled to confirm second hypothesis as well. Confirmation was reached on the third hypothesis as well, as the appropriate logic of intervention increased the probability of reaching the agreement. The most ambitious part of the plan was an increasing role of state through control of cogeneration projects in Vilnius and Kaunas. However, the use bulldozer strategy enabled the decision so the 4th hypothesis has been mainly rejected. The use of strategy of demonization has been partly confirmed as even though it was largely used in the interaction of the 3rd coalition against the others, the conjunctural coalition has been mainly ignored which still let to reach the change. It must be highlighted that potential for leadership was mainly concentrated in the Presidential palace. Not only did the President strive for results, but her adviser had a major role as well during the period of 2008-2012 m. In the period of 2012 – afterwards concentration of ideas was mainly in the “Lithuanian Energy” (the future implementer of the major cogeneration projects). 6th hypothesis has been partly confirmed. As for the 7th, it has been confirmed due to high importance of lessons learnt in the heating sector policy in the last 19 years. |
