As before, decision-making in energy issues is deemed distant and the opportunities to influence it slight. Two out of three (67%) of the respondents are of the opinion that the citizens' opinions have not been sufficiently heard in energy decisions. This opinion has been dominant throughout the follow-up period. In the current results, criticism is almost at the same level as in the two previous surveys. Thus, the lowest value of the follow-up period, reached four years ago, did not mean a permanent alleviation of the public opinion [Figure 25].

Extensive confidence in the legislation and official control relating to energy solutions has become apparent in various connections. This is also true with regard to nuclear power, the attitudes towards which largely depend on safety considerations. Seven out of ten (70%) agree with the statement 'The authorities have coped well with the safety control of nuclear power plants in Finland'. Only a marginal minority disagree (4%). The current distribution is slightly more trusting than the year before and almost at the same level as in the peak year of 2004. The consensus has been clearly higher in all the surveys conducted in the new millennium than in the earlier surveys of the 1980's (this statement was reintroduced to the survey three years ago after a pause of almost twenty years) [Figure 26].

In connection with this, the safety of the new nuclear power plant under construction also receives absolution. The statement 'When the fifth nuclear power plant is completed, it will be even safer than the existing plants which have also proved to be safe as such' is accepted by nearly a half of the respondents (45%). Less than a fifth (18%) disagree. The distribution is slightly more reserved than in the previous survey, however. Furthermore, one can see a gradual decrease in trust over time. Even though the problems encountered during the construction of the nuclear power plant do not mean a weaker final result, one can assume that the public discussion regarding the construction problems has started to deteriorate the image of the power plant itself [Figure 27].

When the aspect of control is extended to the level of the European Union, opinions become more complicated. Although the role of the EU as an overseer of the national practices in nuclear power issues is considered recommendable, it is not believed that this would directly benefit Finland. This is an interpretation of the results of the two statements addressing the theme. More respondents agree (56%) than disagree (24%) with the statement 'Decisions about regulations concerning the safety of nuclear power and nuclear waste should be made jointly at the EU level, not in each member country separately'. Even though the support for common regulations has slightly decreased since the previous survey, it is likely only a question of a seesaw effect which has also previously occurred [Figure 28].

The reaction to the extended statement 'If the EU were to issue common safety standards on nuclear power, they would promote the safe use of nuclear power also in Finland' is more sceptical and also more uncertain. Three out of ten (31%) agree, while almost an equal number (29%) disagree. The result does not substantially deviate from the earlier results. The same applies to the entire follow-up period: the belief in Finland benefiting from the EU has neither increased nor decreased in the past five years (no figure).

Naturally, the government does not have the sole right to decision-making in energy issues. Companies also make energy-related decisions, and their strategic policies are the more influential the more the conventional steering power of the society moves over to the markets. Independent decision-making by companies generates mistrust amongst the public, however. Only a fifth (20%) of the respondents accept the idea that companies should be able to decide for themselves which energy sources they use for producing electricity. This right is rejected by half of the respondents (55%). The demand for control has increased from last year but is at the same level as two years ago. It is somewhat difficult to clarify the reason behind the rather bumpy time series - more significantly so as the changes are too major to be explained by random variation [Figure 29].