Finland’s first tender process for accepting renewable electricity production into the new premium system will take place at the end of 2018. The purpose of the premium system is to promote renewable energy power plant investments in a technology-neutral fashion. Electricity produces can participate in the tender process with wind, biogas, wood fuel, solar or wave power investments. In addition to wind power, the subsidies paid in the premium system are expected to go to electricity produced from wood fuel in particular.
24.9.2018
Renewable Energy Tenders are Won by Well-Planned Projects
Related services
The upcoming tender process will accept a maximum yearly production amount of 1.4 TWh into the premium system from renewable power plants. The filing period for the Energy Authority’s tender process being organised this autumn is 15 November–31 December 2018. Arranging this kind of tender process requires that separate authorisation is included in the government budget. This being the case, the time of the next potential tender process has not yet been confirmed.
Premium and Annual Production Bids
The most cost-effective and competitive projects will win the tender process. Project developers have to submit binding bids for the subsidy level (euros/MWh) (premium) at which they are willing to produce a certain amount of energy (MWh) per year. Each winning project developer will receive a maximum subsidy of the amount of the premium in their bid for the energy they produce. The maximum premium allowed in the bids is 53.5 euros/MWh
The bid must also state the power plant intended to produce the electricity. It will be possible to supplement the information in the bid later on as the implementation of the project progresses by stating the aggregate nominal output or range of the power plant’s generators or solar panels. The final power plant must be notified to the Energy Authority within the limits of the stated range no later than two months after three years have passed from the decision accepting the power plant into the premium system being issued.
General Requirements
To participate in the tender process, renewable energy projects must be carefully planned and be far into development. In order for a power plant project to be accepted into the premium system, the project has to meet the requirements set in the Act on Electricity Produced from Renewable Energy Sources (1396/2010, as amended):
Electricity Producers Will Be Required to Post Security in Two Stages
In addition to being far into development, electricity producers will be required to post security for the fulfilment of their obligations both during the tender process and during the implementation phase.
First, electricity producers will be required to post a participation security for the Energy Authority when the producer files its bid. The amount of the participation security is the amount of yearly electricity production multiplied by 2 euros/MWh. The participation security must be valid until 30 June 2019. The participation security will be returned to the producers of losing bids when the results of the tender process are determined.
The electricity producers with winning bids will get their participation security back when they post a construction security for the Energy Authority, the amount of which is the amount of yearly electricity production multiplied by 16 euros/MWh. If the construction security is not posted within a month of the acceptance decision being given, the decision will lapse and the participation security will not be returned to the producer. The construction security must be valid for at least three years and six months.
Guarantees, guarantee insurance or pledged deposits issued by credit institutions or insurance companies or other professional financial institutions will be accepted as participation and construction security. The Energy Authority has published a template for the security to be posted.
After Acceptance
The electricity producer must at least partially connect its power plant to the power-distribution network in such a way that the plant produces electricity into the network within three years of being accepted into the premium system. The deadline is calculated from the date the acceptance decision was given. If the power plant is only partially connected to the power-distribution network within the three-year deadline, the construction security posted by the producer will be partially realised. If the power plant is not connected to the network even in part within the three-year deadline, the construction security will be realised in full.
Furthermore, if the power plant has not been fully connected to the power-distribution network in such a way that it fully produces electricity into the network within five years due to a reason attributable to the producer, the acceptance decision will lapse and the power plant project will be excluded from the premium system.
Falling below the amount of power generation stated in the bid will lead to sanctions. The electricity producer is obligated to pay underproduction compensation to the state if it does not produce the accepted amount of power. The power plant’s average output must be at least 75% of the yearly production during the first four-year ‘subsidy period’, and at least 80% during subsequent periods. The underproduction compensation is determined based on the premium in the bid and the amount of underproduction. However, the electricity producer will not be obligated to pay underproduction compensation if the shortfall is attributable to the system operator.
Electricity producers accepted into the premium system also have other obligations relating to, for example, the implementation of the power plant and reporting.
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