12.1.2021

Permitting Processes for Renewable Energy Plants Being Streamlined

Related services

On 4 January 2020, Parliament passed the Act on permit granting processes and certain other administrative procedures for renewable energy plants (1145/2020) (in Finnish laki uusiutuvan energian tuotantolaitosten lupamenettelyistä ja eräistä muista hallinnollisista menettelyistä) with the purpose of streamlining and speeding up the permitting processes and certain other administrative procedures for renewable energy plants. The act will enter into force on 30 June 2021.

The new act will enable developers of renewable energy plants to handle their project’s permitting and other administrative procedures listed in the act in a centralised manner through one electronic contact point. Furthermore, the act lays down firm time limits for the maximum duration of permitting processes and other administrative approval procedures for renewable energy plants (i.e. electricity production plants).

The act does not amend the contents of or requirements for the actual permit granting processes or other administrative procedures for renewable energy plants.

The act nationally implements the regulations concerning the organisation and duration of the permit granting process for renewable energy plants provided for in the EU directive on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (EU) No 2018/2001 (RED II).

Electronic Service and Centralised Guidance for Renewable Energy Plants

In the future, the project developer of a renewable energy plant (the applicant) will not be forced to deal separately with many different authorities depending on what permit or approval they are applying for.

Going forward, the applicant can apply through a single electronic contact point for the permits and other administrative approvals listed in the act to build and repower the plant, to connect the plant to the grid and to operate it.

The electronic contact point is administered by one contact point authority, which is the Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment for South Ostrobothnia (ELY Centre). However, permit matters are still resolved by the competent authority specified in the legislation applicable to the permit matter.

As the contact point authority, the ELY Centre for South Ostrobothnia is also obligated to advise applicants in procedural questions (e.g. questions relating to the initiation of a matter and the stage of a procedure) and to give applicants guidance relating to the handling of an administrative matter in cooperation with the competent authority through the electronic contact point.

The applicant can still deal directly with the competent permit authority instead of using the electronic contact point if they so wish.

Time Limits for Permitting and Approval Processes

The act lays down the maximum total duration for the permit processes and other administrative approval procedures for renewable energy plants listed in the act:

The time limits mentioned above only apply to power plants (i.e. plants producing electricity) and not, for instance, to heating plants or renewable fuel plants. However, the act does not define how much of the plant’s total energy production must be electricity production.

The applicable permit processes include, among other things, environmental permits, water permits, permits to deviate from the protection of certain aquatic habitat types and other habitat types, flight obstacle permits, permits to build high voltage cables, consent to build in the Finnish Exclusive Economic Zone, building, action and demolition permits and permits and deviations in areas requiring planning that are handled in connection with the building permit procedure.

The time limit begins to run when the applicant initiates the first applicable permitting process or approval procedure and ends when the last decision on an applicable permitting process or approval procedure has been delivered to the applicant. Thus, the time limit includes all stages of the process from initiation to the notification of the decision, including time limits for supplementing the application and statutory hearings. The applicant is not required to initiate all processes at the same time. However, the time limit does not include the appeal period or the time before the applicant has an applicable matter pending relating to the permitting process. The application of the time limits does not depend on whether the applicant uses the electronic contact point or deals directly with the competent authority.

In certain situations, the time limit set for the total duration can be extended by the same time that certain processes listed in the act require, including appealing a decision on an applicable permit or approval process. Furthermore, the contact point authority can grant a discretionary extension not exceeding one year to the time limit due to exceptional circumstances.

As the contact point authority, the ELY Centre for South Ostrobothnia is obligated to monitor the realisation of the time limits laid down in the act for the duration of permit processes. There are no sanctions for the authorities for exceeding the time limits, but the applicant can resort to general remedies, such as filing an administrative complaint or a complaint to the supreme guardians of the law. Whether or not the binding time limits will actually shorten the authorities’ processing times with respect to plants producing electricity from renewable sources remains to be seen once the act is implemented.

Latest references

We advised WithSecure Oyj in the sale of its open source data collection product and business to Patria Oyj. The divested business combining software and services falls outside WithSecure’s current strategy. Through the sale, WithSecure sharpens its focus on the Elements portfolio. WithSecure is a global cyber security company (listed on NASDAQ OMX Helsinki) with more than 35 years of industry experience. WithSecure offers partners flexible commercial models, ensuring mutual success across the dynamic cyber security landscape. Patria is an international company in the defence and security industry offering defence, security and aviation life cycle support services and technology solutions. As a result of the transaction, Patria will open a new office in Oulu and 10 WithSecure experts currently working in the business area will join Patria. 
Case published 30.9.2024
We advised A. Ahlström in establishing a corporate sustainability due diligence process plan which incorporates best practices and tailored solutions based on our expertise within relevant business sectors. Our comprehensive ESG offering also included tailored training for members of the investment team and management team and the board of directors of several portfolio companies. ‘The ESG team at Castrén & Snellman provided us with legal and practical advice around the ESG regulatory tsunami that we need to incorporate in our ESG work,’ comments Camilla Sågbom, Director, Sustainability and Communications, at A. Ahlström Oy. A. Ahlström is a family-owned industrial company, developing leading global specialist positions in Forest & Fiber and Environmental technology sectors.
Case published 5.9.2024
We represented Vapaus Bikes Finland Oy, a company offering employee benefit bikes, in its international EUR 10 million Series A funding round. The investors behind the funding are private equity investors Shift4Good and Superhero Capital Ltd as well as Tesi together with the European Guarantee Fund of the European Investment Bank. The equity-based funding will support the company’s international expansion, software development, platform automation, and the growth of its concept for the second-hand market of bikes. Vapaus Bikes Finland is at the forefront of sustainable mobility services and has been a pioneer in the Employee Benefit Bikes sector since late 2020. It has been ranked among Finland’s fastest growing companies. Shift4Good is an impact venture capital fund focused on the decarbonisation of the transportation sector. Tesi (officially Finnish Industry Investment Ltd) is a state-owned, market-driven investment company that invests in venture capital and private equity funds and directly in Finnish startups and growth companies.
Case published 21.8.2024
We successfully acted for the City of Rovaniemi in a matter concerning offence in public office and damages claims in relation to a significant investment decision made by the city. The defendants were the city’s former municipal corporate officer, who was in an employment relationship, and a city treasurer, who was in a public-service employment relationship and acted as the supervisor of the municipal corporate officer. The criminal matter related to the City Board’s decision to invest EUR 2 million of the city’s funds in bonds offered by a newly established investment company in accordance with a decision prepared by the defendants. A significant part of the company’s operations involved quick loan business. The main legal question in the matter was whether the investment of public funds constitutes an exercise of public authority and whether regulation on offences in public office therefore becomes applicable even to a person in an employment relationship. The municipal corporate officer in an employment relationship was charged with aggravated abuse of public office based on her negligence in the preparation and presentation of the investment decision as well as based on a conflict of interest due to the fact that she had invested her own money in a company that received funding from the investment target presented to the City Board. The charges of an offence in public office against the city treasurer concerned his position as the supervisor and reporter of the city’s investment activities. He was also involved in the preparation and presentation of the City Board’s decision. The processing of the matter started in the District Court of Lapland in June 2022. In its judgment given in August 2022, the District Court stated, based among other things on our argumentation, that the investment of public funds constitutes an exercise of public authority and that regulation on offences in public office can therefore be applied to the municipal corporate officer. The District Court deemed that the conduct of the former municipal corporate officer fulfils the characteristics of abuse of public office and that the conduct of the former city treasurer fulfils the characteristics of violation of official duty with respect to the preparation of the investment decision, but the right to bring charges had become time-barred. Punishments could therefore not be imposed on the defendants, but the defendants were ordered to jointly and severally pay the city approximately EUR 114,000 in damages plus interest for late payment. The city treasurer’s share of the amount was 10%. The prosecutor accepted the judgment but the other parties appealed it to the Court of Appeal. Acting for the city, we pursued claims for both punishment and damages in the Court of Appeal. The Rovaniemi Court of Appeal processed the matter in November and December 2023. In its judgment given in June 2024, the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s judgment with respect to the abuse of public office and violation of official duty. The Court of Appeal deemed that the municipal corporate officer had failed in her duty to declare the conflict of interest. In addition, she had failed in her duty to ensure that the prepared decision was in compliance with the city’s investment guidelines and that it had been properly put out to tender. The Court of Appeal also found that the text of the investment proposal was insufficient and misleading and that the municipal corporate officer’s conduct was intentional. As regards the city treasurer, the Court of Appeal held that he had failed in his duty to ensure that the investment proposal to the City Board complied with the investment guidelines, that the presentation was not misleading and that risks were taken into account as required by the investment guidelines. With the judgement, the Court of Appeal took a clear position that abuse in public offices and when exercising public authority is not acceptable. The judgment is also significant as it declares that investing public funds constitutes an exercise of public authority and that the liability for acts in office therefore becomes applicable even to persons in employment relationships. In addition, a key question for the Court of Appeal to assess was defining the amount of economic damage in a matter related to investment activities. The Court of Appeal held based on our arguments that the conduct of the municipal corporate officer and the city treasurer had caused damage to the city. The Court of Appeal increased the amount of damages to EUR 210,000 with the city treasurer’s share limited to 10%. The amount was increased because the Court of Appeal deemed that the city had suffered damage not only in terms of the loss of capital but also in terms of the loss of estimated return on investment. The judgement is not final.
Case published 21.8.2024