Energy policy persistence vis-à-vis energy crisis: The curious case of the Slovak Republic

In 2019 the EU embarked on a journey towards decarbonising its economy by 2050. However, this goal was interrupted first by the Covid-19 pandemic and then by the Russian invasion to Ukraine causing energy security crisis in the EU. Several members have thus re-considered their energy policies and started to prioritise energy security. They re-evaluated their coal phase-out plans as they started to view their domestic coal stocks as energy security guarantors, re-considered the role of nuclear energy as stable and secure energy source, or doubled down on renewables for the very same reasons. However, not all countries have introduced changes to their energy policies. Slovakia, for example, did not revise its coal phase-out plan, kept considering nuclear energy as important part of its energy mix, and maintained its lukewarm approach towards renewables. While support for nuclear energy has both energy security and decarbonisation aspects, coal phase-out has only decarbonisation dimension and the unenthusiastic approach to renewables supports neither decarbonisation nor energy security. We explain the persistence of Slovak energy policy vis-à-vis current energy crisis by ‘nuclear lock-in’ and ‘financial Europeanisation’. Long-term support for nuclear energy causing its high share of electricity mix locked out other energy sources including renewables that are a direct competitor for political support and consequently subsidies. Availability of EU funds supporting transformation of coal regions helped to start Slovak coal phase-out before the pandemic and the short-term profits resulting from postponement of the process were outweighed by long-term advantages stemming from the transformation process