Apart from ownership and regulation, viewpoints relating to the functionality and effects of the electricity markets were also assessed. According to earlier measurements, the pan-Nordic scope of the market has been regarded as a positive matter in that it ensures the availability of electricity. Nevertheless, dependency on other countries has always been felt to be a negative 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 almost three out of four respondents (73%). The wish to cope on one’s own has strengthened from last year and has also been on the increase in the two measurements preceding it. The completion of the fifth nuclear power plant currently under construction, for its part, helps to realise this wish [Figure 35.].

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. More than one in four (28%) now consider that competition has reduced the price of electricity used by their own household. Nearly half of the respondents (46%) deny the matter. Even if the assessment is not positive, in relative comparison it is at least fair. This is because the proportion of those believing in the positive impact of competition was earlier strongly reduced year by year so that the overall change was considerably large. The latest measurement indicated that this trend is breaking and opinions are partially reverting. Now criticism has continued to decrease to some extent. Not only variable feelings but also variable facts can be found behind the changes. The turns in the assessments are obviously linked to the price development of electricity. Criticism increased with the consumer prices of electricity. The permanence of the latest change, which in turn reflected the alleviation of the price situation, will probably be put to a hard test under the pressure of the price increases that have taken place after the study period and are predicted to take place later [Figure 36.].

This time the price problematics were also addressed by a set of new questions in the form of claims. The arguments were picked from the public debate related to the electricity market without avoiding its most pungent claims. Generally, the response to the claims remained subdued. Despite the coverage in the media, the queried matters were distant to the respondents and thus difficult in terms of opinion-building. Both production companies and the electricity exchange have been blamed for the repeated increases in the price of electricity. The critical claim referring to the role of the electricity exchange, ‘As a result of the start of emission trading, the Nordic electricity exchange (Nord Pool) has become a mere price increase automaton', does not encourage the majority of the respondents (52%) to take any kind of stand. However, acceptance is still visibly greater than rejection (43%/5%). It must be noted in the interpretation that the ultimate scapegoat in the claim is not the exchange but emission trading [Figure 37a.].

Public opinion remains as indecisive when assessing a concrete fact based on international comparative statistics. The defensive claim heard in connection with the increases in the price of electricity stating that ‘Electricity is cheaper in Finland than in most of the other EU countries' evokes considerable uncertainty (53%). There are hardly more of those that find the matter true than those who disagree (25%/21%) [Figure 37b.]. The claim questioning the justification of ‘windfall profits’, tinged by moral indignation, ‘It is wrong that companies generating emissionless electricity (hydropower and nuclear power, among others) charge a market price for their electricity that has increased due to emission trading’ receives substantially more response: more than two out of three (69%) agree, while about one out of ten (11%) disagree [Figure 37c.].

The argument that is in favour of the importance of the market ‘The electricity market should not be blamed for the high price of electricity, because without it electricity would be even more expensive' again remains in practice without a clear response. However, there are slightly more of those rejecting the matter (31%) than those believing in it (23% [Figure 37d.]. Likewise the public opinion ends up in a neutral draw when it assesses the statement (that was at the time heard from an authoritative source) ‘When the fifth nuclear power plant is completed, the electricity generated by it will stabilise the electricity market and keep the electricity price trend under control'. More than one in four (28%) agree, while almost as many (25%) disagree [Figure 37e.].