The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment circulated a draft proposal for a new subsidy system for renewable energy for comments on 15 September. The draft proposes that provisions on a premium system based on a technology-neutral tender process be added to the Act on Subsidies for Electricity Produced from Renewable Energy Sources (1396/2010).
21.9.2017
Reform of Renewable Energy Subsidy System — Ministry Proposes Tender-Based Premium System
Related services
The proposed tender process would be open to wind, biogas, wood fuel, solar and wave power investment projects. The intention is for the tender process to encourage the development of cost-effective projects and maintain continual development pressure in the sector.
The tender process would be held in 2018–2019, during which time a total of 2 TWh would be subject to tender. The tenders with the lowest premium and with an annual electricity production not exceeding the annual production subject to tender would win the process. The premium offered would have to fall under the threshold price of the process, which to start with would be EUR 53.5/MWh, i.e. the same as under the current feed-in tariff system.
The subsidy paid to the producer would be determined based on the premium of the winning tender and the amount of electricity produced and average market price of electricity during the tariff period. The maximum duration of the subsidy period is the same as in the current fee-in tariff system, i.e. 12 years.
Only Well-Developed Projects Eligible to Tender
The proposed regulations seek to ensure that the projects participating in the tender process are genuinely feasible, and only projects that are quite far along in the development process will be eligible to participate. The zoning, construction permits and any exemption decisions required for construction must all be final at the time the application is filed. However, no final decisions on acquiring the fixed assets relating to the power plant or on starting construction can be made yet when filing the application.
Projects with a pending feed-in tariff approval process will not be eligible for the tender process. This means that, for example, a power plant that is appealing a negative feed-in tariff decision would not be eligible. However, a producer can participate in the tender process with a power plant that has been subject to a quota decision under the current feed-in tariff system.
The producer would be obligated to produce the amount of electricity from renewable sources stated in the approved tender. Failing to meet this obligation would lead to liability to pay compensation for underproduction to the state. This compensation would be payable if the average production of the plant is less than 75% of the approved annual production during the first subsidy period (first four years), and less than 80% during the second or third subsidy periods (the subsequent four year periods).
Participation Security to be Required of Tenderers
In addition to the requirements set for participating projects, the proposal seeks to ensure the feasibility of projects by requiring that participants post security during the process. To participate in the tender process, electricity producers would have to post a participation security amounting to the annual production of electricity being tendered multiplied by EUR 2/MWh.
The producers would get the participation security back if they lose the tender. Approved tenders would get the security back when the producer posts the required construction security. The amount of the construction security is the annual production amount multiplied by EUR 16/MWh. The construction security would be returned to the producer if the power plant is fully connected to and producing electricity in the grid before the deadline. If only half of the plant’s capacity is connected to and producing energy in the grid by the deadline, half of the construction security would be paid to the state.
The power plant would have to be connected to the grid and producing electricity within three years of the decision accepting it into the premium system having been issued. Nevertheless, it is sufficient if the connection is only partially completed by the deadline. However, this would make it difficult for the producer to meet its production obligation, which would lead to the obligation to pay compensation for underproduction, and the producer would also lose part of its construction security. The entire power plant would have to be connected to the grid and producing electricity within five years of the decision.
The circulation for comments arranged by the Ministry ends on 4 October 2017. It will be possible to enact the proposed amendments once the European Commission has approved the premium system. The Commission procedure is expected to take 6–12 months.
Latest news
Latest references
Fortum – AI workshop
We delivered two AI workshops for Fortum Corporation’s Mergers and Acquisitions team, with both legal and business professionals participating. The sessions combined fundamental AI principles with custom use cases for commercially available AI tools tailored to Fortum’s needs. We also presented a bespoke solution merging AI with a script-based tool developed by our Legal Tech team, enabling a more automated way of working. Our experts conducted the training drawing on their legal background and leading experience in this emerging field of legal technology. Participants particularly appreciated the clarity and relevance of the implementations demonstrated. ‘C&S delivered an excellent, well-structured series of workshops, with directly applicable takeaways,’ says Sabina Hautaviita, Legal Counsel for M&A at Fortum.
Case published 9.3.2026
VR – Supreme Court decision clarifies working time practices
We successfully represented VR Group before the Supreme Court in a case concerning the meal break practice of commuter train drivers. On 6 February 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in VR’s favour (decision KKO:2026:12), confirming that VR had the right to amend the commuter train drivers’ meal break practice in 2021 by rendering the break unpaid in accordance with the applicable collective agreement. This decision clarifies the interpretation of collective agreements and employment legislation as well as the limits of the employer’s right to direct work. Over 250 commuter train drivers challenged the unpaid meal break practice which VR introduced in April 2021. Before the change, meal breaks had a long history of being paid. The change was based on the train drivers’ collective agreement, which allows for meal breaks to be organised either as paid or unpaid time. The Supreme Court ruled that the scheduling and managing of breaks falls within the core area of the employer’s right to direct work. This increases the threshold for an established practice becoming a binding condition for the parties. Merely following a practice consistently and over a long period of time does not make the practice binding; instead, the employer’s intent to commit to the practice must be clearly evident from the employer’s conduct or other circumstances. As both alternatives – paid and unpaid – for organising meal breaks had been retained in the collective agreement despite other amendments over the years, it could not be considered that VR had intended to commit to the paid break practice and waive its right to direct work as regards break scheduling. It was also significant that the employment contracts explicitly referred only to the collective agreement as regards working time. The Supreme Court deemed that the employees’ paid meal break was not an established term of employment and that VR was entitled to change the practice based on the collective agreement. The employer had the right, by virtue of its right to direct work, to unilaterally change the meal break practice by choosing to apply the other arrangement permitted by the collective agreement.
Case published 3.3.2026
CapMan Growth – Investment in Kuntokeskus Liikku
We are assisting CapMan Growth in its significant investment in Kuntokeskus Liikku, a Finnish gym chain known for its high-quality self-service facilities and excellent value for money. The investment will further strengthen Liikku’s position as a market leader and support the continued execution of its growth strategy. Liikku is one of Finland’s leading fitness chains, with more than 70 locations across the country serving nearly 90,000 members. The company’s concept is to offer high-quality self-service gyms at an exceptionally competitive price point which, combined with strong operational efficiency, provides a solid foundation for profitable growth. The company’s main shareholder is COR Group, a long-time partner of CapMan Growth, and a Finnish health and wellness conglomerate known for active ownership and long-term value creation. CapMan Growth is a leading Finnish growth investor that makes significant investments in entrepreneur-led growth companies with a turnover of €10–200 million. CapMan Growth is part of CapMan, which is a leading Nordic private equity investor engaged in active value creation work. CapMan has been listed on the Helsinki Stock Exchange since 2001.
Case published 27.2.2026
Terrafame – Environmental and water management permit processes concerning the company’s entire operations and the KL1 side rock area
Castrén & Snellman successfully assisted Terrafame Ltd in environmental and water management permit processes concerning the company’s entire operations and the KL1 side rock area, on which the Supreme Administrative Court issued its decision on 12 February 2026 (KHO 366/2026 and 367/2026). The changes made to the decisions of the Vaasa Administrative Court as a result of Terrafame’s appeals, enable the company to implement its new strategy and develop its operations as planned. The decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court brought the nearly ten-year-long permit process to a close.
Case published 20.2.2026