For residents, a long power outage means much more than just a non-working refrigerator or unlit homes. In some places, water supply and mobile communication were also disrupted, water supply points and wastewater treatment facilities were not functioning. There were problems with food storage, medical and nursing equipment operation, and municipalities had to urgently look for generators.
Read more Check if you have «ferritin face»: these signs may indicate iron deficiency
“Increasing dependence on electricity does not mean that electrification itself is a mistake. The risk arises when electricity use expands faster than investments are made in network reliability, alternative supply routes, storage, and backup sources. Electrification and the resilience of the energy system must be developed together,” says LPK President Vidmantas Janulevičius.
At risk – tens of millions of euros of economic activity
According to LPK economist Živilė Simonaitytė-Vasiliauskienė’s calculations, Lithuania’s gross domestic product in the second quarter of 2026 was 22.7 billion euros. This means that on an average calendar day, about 250 million euros of GDP is generated in the country.
ESO serves about 1.9 million private and business customers. At the peak of the storm, about 14% of them had no electricity. Making a very rough assumption that economic activity is distributed similarly to electricity users, 14% of one day’s Lithuanian economy would amount to about 35 million euros.
“This does not mean that the storm cost Lithuania 35 million euros in GDP. Electricity supply was interrupted for different durations, the storm occurred over the weekend, some activities did not stop, and some lost activity may be compensated later. However, this figure helps to understand the scale of economic activity that falls into the risk zone during such a disruption,” emphasizes Ž. Simonaitytė-Vasiliauskienė.
According to ESO’s calculations, relocating all 10 kV overhead lines underground in Lithuania would cost about 2.873 billion euros. The approximate value of one day’s economic activity, which falls into the 35 million euro risk zone, accounts for about 1.2% of this amount.
According to the economist, it cannot be concluded from this that cabling would pay off after a certain number of storms. The calculation does not show actual losses from power supply disruptions, their duration, or broader damage to residents, businesses, and infrastructure. However, it allows comparing the cost of investments with the scale of economic activity at risk.
Power restoration is not enough for industry
In industrial companies, even a short power outage can stop production lines, damage raw materials or products, and disrupt order fulfillment. Some technological processes must run continuously, so production may not be immediately resumed after power restoration.
“It is necessary to restart and check equipment, dispose of defective products, restore temperature or pressure regimes. Losses are increased by disrupted logistics, cold chains, communication, and data systems. Companies operating in regions without multiple independent power inputs or their own backup capacities are especially vulnerable,” says V. Janulevičius.
According to LPK, when assessing the consequences of the storm, it is necessary to calculate not only the direct damage to the network and the number of customers without electricity but also business downtime, damaged products, additional production recovery costs, and the cost of disrupted public services.
Read more Storm-damaged Panevėžys football arena is expected to be repaired within a month
Cabling is necessary, but not enough on its own
Currently, ESO plans to replace about 2,000 kilometers of overhead lines with cables in forested areas by 2028. After the weekend storm, Energy Minister Lukas Savickas stated that cabling should be accelerated and proposed considering a scope of 6,000 kilometers. The Speaker of the Seimas, Juozas Olekas, also suggests laying a larger part of the electricity networks underground.
According to LPK, cabling overhead lines in forested and most vulnerable areas is justified. However, relocating the entire network underground would be very expensive and not rational everywhere. Underground lines are not threatened by falling trees, but it can be harder to locate faults, and repairs sometimes take longer.
Therefore, decisions must be made considering the specific network section’s location, voltage, fault probability, potential loss scale, and power restoration possibilities.
“Kilometers of laid cables cannot become the sole indicator of progress. A long-term and funded plan is needed, in which network renewal is combined with ring connections, alternative supply routes, local electricity generation, storage, and backup capacities,” says V. Janulevičius.
Critical facilities cannot depend on a single power source
Cities, towns, and industrial areas need more local electricity generation and storage capacities. However, solar or wind power alone does not solve problems during power supply disruptions. For such sources to operate when central supply is interrupted, storage, proper management, and the ability to switch to autonomous mode are necessary.
Such systems, together with biomass cogeneration and, where necessary, backup gas capacities, could support the operation of water supply, communications, heating, transport, and essential production processes.
The storm also showed the consequences that intentional infrastructure damage could have. Railways, highway management systems, communication facilities, electronic warfare, and anti-drone measures cannot depend on a single power source. Each critical facility must have a mandatory autonomous operation duration and backup capacities to ensure it.
LPK proposes:
* cabling the most vulnerable sections of the electricity network;
* creating ring connections and alternative supply routes;
* expanding local generation, storage, and backup capacities;
* setting standards for autonomous operation of critical facilities;
* assessing actual storm losses to residents and businesses;
* planning investments according to network section risk and potential disruption costs.
“After every major storm, the discussion starts anew. This time, we must precisely determine where the biggest disruptions occurred, how much they cost, and which investments would yield the greatest results. These answers must turn into a concrete, funded work plan, not be postponed until the next storm,” says the LPK president.
