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 three previous surveys. Thus, the lowest value of the follow-up period, reached four years ago, did not mean a permanent alleviation of public opinion [Figure 30.].

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. Six out of ten (60%) agree with the statement 'The authorities have coped well with the safety control of nuclear power plants in Finland'. One in eight (13%) disagree. However, the distribution is slightly less trusting than in the previous year and, at the same time, it is the most reserved figure in the 21st century. In the results during this millennium, trust has been more extensive than in the results of 1980s which comprise the beginning of the time series (the question was included in the survey in 2004 after a break of almost twenty years) [Figure 31.].

The safety of the new nuclear power plant under construction also receives absolution to a certain point. 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 more than two fifths of the respondents (43%). The estimate is rejected by one in five people (19%). Even though the distribution is only a little less critical than in the previous survey, 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 say that the public discussion regarding the construction problems has started to deteriorate the image of the power plant itself [Figure 32.].

When the aspect of control is extended to the level of the European Union, opinions become more complicated. The previous surveys have shown that although the role of the EU as an overseer of the national practices in nuclear power issues is considered recommendable as such, it is not believed that this would directly benefit Finland. Surveillance is mostly needed by others. More respondents agree (58%) than disagree (23%) 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 increased since the previous survey, it is likely only a question of a seesaw effect, which has also occurred previously. [Figure 33.]

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 has been shifted to the markets. Independent decision-making by companies generates mistrust amongst the public, however. Only approximately one in five (21%) 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 (56%). The demand for control has not increased from last year but is now more common than two years ago. It is somewhat difficult to clarify the reason behind the rather unsystematic bumpy time series - more significantly so as the changes are too major to be explained by random variation [Figure 34.].

The question on the locations of the possible new nuclear plants is also related to the aspect of control. The public discussion has found both positive and negative justifications for the alternatives. One argument has been that the preparedness offered by the locations of the current nuclear reactors should be utilised. The proposal concerning this, 'If new nuclear power plants are built, they should be located in the locations of the current nuclear power plants' receives clearly more defenders (59%) than opposers (12%). (no figure).

Another question which is connected with this is in favour of the potential location 'If a new nuclear power plant was constructed in Loviisa, its lost heat should be used as district heating in the capital region, replacing the region's coal-fired power plants'. This question provides a distribution with an extensive consensus. More than four out of five (84%) supports this while only a marginal proportion disagree (2%). Even though the grounds for this is breaking away from what is considered an absolutely negative form - the use of coal is desired to be limited in every possible way - the result cannot be considered surprising considering people's prejudice against nuclear power plants. (no figure).