Apart from ownership and regulation, viewpoints relating to the functionality and effects of the electricity markets were also assessed. The expansion of the market to the Nordic countries is experienced as a positive thing, at least in respect of the availability of electricity. According to the majority (62%) of respondents, 'Finland's presence in the pan-Nordic electricity market ensures that there will be no shortage of electricity in Finland'. Only a small minority disagrees with this claim (10%). This result has not essentially changed from last year (primarily the uncertainty has diminished). Without underestimating the benefits to the community, it can still be stated that in poorer times - during periods of drought - the other Nordic countries have probably no electricity to sell either [Figure 32.].

Naturally, dependency on other countries is, nevertheless, an unfavourable situation. The claim that 'Finland should be self-sufficient in its electricity generation, without dependency on the economic trends of the international electricity trade' is supported by two out of three respondents (66%). The more or less pious hope about self-sufficiency is now nearly as usual as a year ago. The completion of a new nuclear power plant will probably contribute to the realisation of this hope (no figure).

Although the fact that the markets are pan-Nordic is not experienced as daunting, their more extensive opening arouses feelings that refer to a certain degree of concern. The statement 'A consequence of the deregulation of the electricity market within the entire EU is that giant companies from Central Europe will take over the Finnish electricity market' is agreed with by more people (48%) than disagreed with(12%). This trend is now considered somewhat more probable (43 believed) than before (no figure).

Attitudes were also tested on a slightly more everyday level. The present 'market-based' system has been criticised in public for, among other things, its diminished security of supplies. This criticism has taken a concrete form in connection with power cuts. These problems, as well as the delay in clearing work after storms, have been explained by the fact that the present system is 'too cost-efficient'. In these types of opinions, people have rather harsh views. The claim 'the recent extensive power cuts prove that market control cannot guarantee security of supplies' is agreed with by almost two out of three respondents (64%; this is a new question, so there is no reference data; no figure)

The unsympathetic views on the present situation are also reflected in other views on the methods of developing productiveness. The accusation 'as a result of market competition, the electricity companies aim to improve their price competitiveness only by cutting costs, not by developing new electricity generation' is agreed with by only about one in two (55%). Only about one in ten (11%) dare to disagree with this claim, while the number of those in doubt is great. This result is in practice identical with the result received a year ago (no figure).

Naturally, the key touchstone for the new system is its impact on the price of electricity. The follow-up measurement that charts the past price impacts of market competition brings out a significant development. The proportion of those who think that competition has reduced the price of electricity consumed by their own household has diminished strongly from the previous year. As a similar kind of shift was detected in the two previous measurements, the total change is great. Now only less than one in five (19%) believe in a positive impact on the price of electricity. At the same time, the proportion of those denying the fact has increased to more than half (59%). Not only variable feelings but also variable facts can be found behind the change: the electricity bought by consumers has gradually become more expensive during the past few years. This result should be interpreted considering the fact that, at the time of the study, the reductions in electricity prices of certain companies had not yet been in the news [Figure 33.].

When speaking about the 'greed' accusations made publicly following the price development of electricity, public opinion shows sharp criticism. The new formulation of the claim 'the recent rise in electricity prices is based on companies' profit targets rather than on drought and frost' is agreed with by a clear majority (62%). Only less than one in five (18%) dare to disagree. So market forces are believed to have more of an influence than the natural forces. Without taking any stand on the proportion of the result that can be explained by the joy of populistic malevolence and the proportion explained with matter-of-fact assessment, this does not give a very good picture of the credibility of the electricity industry and its justifications (no figure).

The results also give a total grade for the functioning of the electricity market. As the system is still fairly new and adaptation to its practices is still under way, it is a question of an interim analysis of the situation. Despite all the criticism, the public verdict is not condemning, albeit not acquitting either. The claim on the subject, 'now that there is a few years' experience in the deregulation of the electricity market, it can be said that the solution was successful', arouses mainly uncertainty. There are as many of those who accept this claim (28%) as those who deny it (29%). As a matter of fact, the distribution is the same as a year ago, the only difference being that the proportion of uncertain respondents is somewhat smaller. The great number of those who have no opinion (now 42%) can be interpreted as a kind of anticipatory 'let's see' attitude. The future will show which way public opinion will sway [Figure 34.].