An outspoken executive highlights that a decision wearing the polish emblem on the chest can affect not only the energy safety of the country but also the broader economy and the welfare of every citizen. The comments were made in an interview with the news site wGospodarce.pl, where the leader of PGE Polska Grupa Energetyczna weighs the implications of a court ruling on the Turów lignite mine and adjacent power plant.
Agnieszka Łakoma asked whether the recent judgment by the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw, which found the mine harmful to the environment, came as a surprise. The discussion centers on whether this ruling could influence Poland’s energy resilience and industrial activity.
The executive responded that the decision carries surprise, though it follows a prior move by the Court of Justice of the European Union two years earlier. He described the court decision as a second attempt to undermine the Turów operation and, in his view, as an anti-Polish and politically motivated act by a single administrator of the Provincial Administrative Court. He expressed astonishment that someone who represents Poland in uniform would issue a ruling with potential consequences for energy security, the national economy, and the well-being of millions of citizens.
In the coverage that followed, several headlines drew attention to criticisms of the court’s stance and to concerns about environmental activism in relation to Turów. The discussion then framed a broader narrative: that the organizations Greenpeace and the Frank Bold Foundation may have prioritized environmental safeguards over national energy priorities.
The executive pointed out that those who filed the lawsuits argue a different priority—environmental protection—yet the emphasis, according to him, remains on the economic and social impact. He stressed that Pinpointing energy security as the core objective is essential for the country. He warned that shutting down the mine along with the power plant would carry heavy economic and social costs, noting that the Turów complex supplies a substantial portion of the nation’s electricity demand and heats the region. He asserted that envisioning a country of millions without power due to a court decision is unacceptable and that his group would not allow such a scenario to unfold.
Officials have suggested the option to appeal to higher courts, including the Supreme Administrative Court. The question asked at this stage is whether a broader acceptance of activists’ arguments could change the strategic stance on Turów. The response remained firm: there is a commitment to defend the Turów mine and the power plant, regardless of court outcomes. Maintaining energy supply security is presented as the paramount objective, with the belief that Turów is indispensable until the completion of a broader energy transition strategy that shifts away from coal. Projections indicate a significant transition window that could extend to 2044, yet the Turów complex is described as essential for Poland’s energy stability in the interim.
Alongside this stance, the narrative emphasizes investment in the energy transition, including moves to replace conventional sources with renewable alternatives. The plan suggests a gradual transformation rather than an abrupt exit from coal, ensuring continuity of power for households and industries while pursuing cleaner sources in the longer term.
The interview was conducted for the wGospodarce.pl portal and has become part of a wider policy conversation about balancing environmental concerns with the country’s energy needs.
In the broader context, the conversation touches on leadership perspectives and the responsibilities of national energy stakeholders to safeguard supply while pursuing decarbonization. The dialogue reflects ongoing tensions among environmental advocacy groups, the public, and policymakers as Poland navigates a path toward a resilient and sustainable energy future.