21.9.2017

Reform of Renewable Energy Subsidy System — Ministry Proposes Tender-Based Premium System

Related services

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).

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 references

We advised Efima Oyj on the sale of its AI business to Better Care Technologies Oy. The transaction included Efima’s Moiva AI platform developed for the care sector, the related technology and brand, customer contracts, and the experts working in the business. Efima is a Finnish digital company that supports the sustainable growth of large and mid-sized companies by streamlining their business processes and by creating competitive advantage through the innovative use of artificial intelligence and data. The company has nearly 200 experts based in Helsinki and Tampere. 
Case published 21.9.2026
We advised Neoen Renewables Finland Oy, part of the French Neoen Group, in its sale of a data centre project to a consortium consisting of international data centre developers and operators. This marked Neoen’s first data centre development project in Finland. Founded in 2008, Neoen is one of the world’s leading independent renewable energy producers. The company operates in 15 countries. It develops, finances, builds, owns, and operates solar power plants, wind farms, and battery storage systems. Neoen Group is owned by global alternative asset manager Brookfield Corporation.
Case published 17.9.2026
We advised Jolt Capital and Tesi in connection with their investment in VEV, a leading provider of commercial fleet electrification solutions. The investment, led by Jolt Capital with Tesi as co-investor, will support VEV’s next phase of growth and expansion across Europe. As part of the transaction, VEV became an independent company following the acquisition of Vitol’s stake in the business. Founded by Vitol, VEV provides integrated fleet electrification solutions combining fleet strategy, charging infrastructure, energy supply and operational services. Through its VEV IQ platform, the company supports more than 6,000 commercial electric vehicles across Europe and has been deployed across more than 600 sites spanning the transport, logistics and waste sectors. Jolt Capital is a private equity firm focused on growth investments in European deeptech companies. Tesi is a Finnish state-owned investment company that promotes Finnish business and economic growth through investments. We advised Jolt Capital and Tesi on the equity financing and structuring aspects of the transaction. International law firm Goodwin advised the investors on the acquisition of VEV.
Case published 10.9.2026
VR-Group Plc is a transport and logistics group owned by the Finnish State, operating passenger and freight rail transport in Finland with activities also in the Swedish market. VR Group provides passenger, logistics and maintenance services with over 160 years’ experience in developing responsible transport of the future. We advise VR Group in intellectual property matters as part of the company’s wider brand protection efforts. Our assignments have included advice on copyright, design rights and trademarks, focusing on the protection of the company’s visual identity – including its distinctive green colour – in connection with transport services as part of a comprehensive IP protection strategy. VR Group’s consistent brand building has also received recognition, including the Finland Chamber of Commerce’s Brand of the Year award in 2026. In the competition, brands were viewed comprehensively from various perspectives, including their story, strategic role, brand renewal ability and intellectual property protection. The jury found that VR had understood the importance of the protection of its brand as part of a comprehensive business strategy. 
Case published 9.9.2026