How “progressive” Riga shuts out industry expertise and falls further behind Vilnius

This is my personal opinion, based on my years working in the lighting industry. I am writing solely in my own capacity, not on behalf of Lucidus, lightful or any other company I am associated with.

In the political spotlight.

Last Saturday, 3 October, Latvia held its parliamentary election. I voted for Progresīvie (the Progressives). Because, you know, they are supposed to be progressive.

Their election programme describes a party committed to social-democratic, green politics without hidden influences. Its first stated priority is to stop Latvia falling behind its Baltic neighbours. It connects our future security and competitiveness with renewable energy and the ability to lead in new technologies.

On public administration, the programme promises clear objectives, transparent budgets, decisions grounded in data and public accountability. On procurement, it is equally clear: openness, sustainability and quality, rather than simply the lowest price.

These are principles I believe in. They are also principles I expect to recognise when the party is in a position to put them into practice.

In Riga, it already is. Progresīvie has led the current municipal coalition since June 2025, when Viesturs Kleinbergs became mayor. The city’s Public Space and Mobility Committee, Ārtelpas un mobilitātes komiteja, is chaired by Marta Kotello, also from Progresīvie.

Then on Monday I read the joint statement from LEVA and LATEA. According to the associations, they had asked the committee and its chair for an opportunity to present their concerns about Riga’s planned street-lighting project at the 5 October meeting. Their requests to speak had been refused. The committee’s explanation, as quoted in the statement, was that this was an informational report, not a public consultation, and discussion with interested parties was not planned.

That is where my professional frustration becomes personal disappointment. I had just voted for a party promising transparency, sustainability and decisions based on evidence. Two days later, I was reading why people with relevant expertise would not be given the floor by a committee chaired by that same party.

Interested parties. Let’s look at who they are.

While LEVA, the Latvian Electrical Materials Wholesalers Association, represents producers and suppliers that naturally have a commercial interest in future tenders, LATEA is different. LATEA, the Latvian Energy Efficiency Association, brings together commercial and academic expertise. Alongside businesses, its published membership includes Riga Technical University, the University of Latvia and Ventspils University of Applied Sciences. There is a substantial body of research and technical knowledge represented there, alongside commercial interests. For transparency, Lucidus SIA, where I work, is also a member of LEVA.

Let’s be honest: in a market as small as Latvia, almost everyone with practical knowledge of lighting has some connection to the business. Of course we have interests. Of course our opinions can be described as subjective.

Those interests should be disclosed. Our arguments should also be examined. Otherwise, we risk deciding that the people who know enough to identify a problem are precisely the people we do not need to hear.

Saturday’s election brought a historic victory for Apvienotais saraksts (United List). I voted differently, but I still want them to succeed in making Latvia a better place to live and work. Congratulating a competitor and wishing them success is perfectly reasonable when we all have to live with the result.

The same applies to public procurement in Riga. Yes, we want to participate. Yes, we want to win. But whoever wins, we will all continue using the same streets, crossings and public spaces. We will all continue to pay for decisions made earlier.

I want the winning contractor to deliver a good project. I want a safe environment, sensible use of energy and public money, and sustainability that survives beyond the presentation slides.

Anyone working in this market knows how often procurements end up before the Procurement Monitoring Bureau, IUB. There can be several reasons: public contracts matter commercially, competition is strong, and suppliers scrutinise requirements closely. Some complaints are justified; others are not. A complaint alone does not settle the argument. Neither does calling the complainant an interested party.

The concerns in this case deserve a proper answer.

According to the associations, SIA Livarts has one employee and six months to deliver the preparatory work. Its expert is to help write the requirements and assess bids for the subsequent procurement under an energy service company (ESCO) model, which they estimate could exceed €10 million. They also identify previous professional links between that expert and RCG Lighthouse and its subsidiary LightHouse ESCO, potential participants in the later competition. One detail the associations do not mention is that the expert in question stood in the 2025 municipal elections in Limbaži municipality for Nacionālā apvienība (National Alliance), one of the parties in Riga’s governing coalition.

A small company can do excellent work. But for a project of this scale, the resources, checks and safeguards need to be clear. Who verifies the underlying data? Who independently reviews the requirements? How will the city prevent any prior commercial relationship from influencing the competition?

Preparing a tender must not become a highway to hell. Sorry, a private access road to the eventual contract.

I am describing a risk that needs to be examined. The reported relationships do not, by themselves, prove that the outcome has been arranged. They do make a public explanation necessary.

And, to be equally clear about my own interest in this project: neither I personally nor any company I am associated with participated in this preparatory tender. I am interested in the tenders that will follow. I would like the opportunity to compete for them, and I have no reason to pretend otherwise.

That is entirely consistent with wanting Riga to get the best possible result.

The promise to catch up with our Baltic neighbours is particularly relevant here. I have been fortunate to work in Estonia and Lithuania for the past nine years. There are things we should learn from, and things we would be better off leaving there.

In lighting, Vilnius is an example worth studying.

Vilniaus apšvietimas reports on its homepage that 98.1% of its 67,096 light points are LED. Meanwhile, Riga’s Public Space and Mobility Department said earlier this year that 36,462 luminaires were being considered for its ESCO project. These figures describe different networks and scopes, but they give some sense of the work Riga still has ahead of it.

Vilnius put financing and implementation behind its ambition. The city’s audit records a €21.64 million loan agreement with the European Investment Bank, signed in September 2019, following a comparison of financing offers. The modernisation covered luminaires, controls and electrical infrastructure.

Later, Vilniaus apšvietimas reported that procurement savings and economies of scale had freed more than €2 million for additional modernisation work.

This preparation became particularly valuable during the 2022 energy crisis, following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Vilnius could adjust its lighting rather than simply accept the electricity bill. In December that year, its deputy mayor told LRT that a 20% reduction in lighting intensity was saving around €80,000 a month.

I would not present Vilnius as a place where everyone agreed and procurement was effortless. Lithuania’s procurement authority identified breaches in two of its LED tenders in 2019. Disputes and scrutiny exist there too.

What I have valued, from my experience in that market, is the willingness to engage with people from the field, discuss the technical choices and work towards a better solution. Listening does not require accepting every supplier’s proposal. It requires being able to explain why a proposal is good, bad or worth changing.

Riga will never be finished.

Riga has cited limited budgets and borrowing capacity as reasons to explore alternative financing. I understand that. An procurement under an ESCO model deserves to be assessed on its actual terms: the total cost to the city, the savings residents retain, the quality of the lighting and the responsibilities over the life of the contract.

I would like to see those comparisons, the technical assumptions behind them, and an independent assessment of the concerns raised. Give the experts an opportunity to explain their objections, and give the municipality an opportunity to answer them properly.

From the response described by the associations, I am left with the impression that defending the existing decision has become more important than finding out whether it is the best one. That is what worries me.

A municipality should be able to change its mind when the evidence warrants it. Finding a weakness before a major contract is signed is useful work. The city benefits from that, whoever first pointed it out.

There is a saying I like: if everyone at the party tells you that you are drunk and should go home, there is a fairly good chance that you are drunk and should go home.

It is not a substitute for checking the facts. But when several industry organisations and specialists are raising concerns, it might be time to stop explaining why they should not speak and start listening to what they have to say.

I supported Progresīvie because those principles matter to me. I expect the party to show that they also matter when someone asks an inconvenient question.

I want Riga to succeed. I want whoever wins the eventual tender to succeed. We all have to live with the lighting long after the procurement argument is over.