As before, decision-making in energy issues is deemed distant and the opportunities to influence it few. Almost two out of three (64%) of respondents are of the opinion that citizens' opinions have not been sufficiently heard in energy decisions. There is only a small number of opponents (15%). This opinion has been dominant throughout the follow-up period. Although the result indicates a slight alleviation of criticism, the change still fits the regular tolerance of changes in opinions. Also in the light of the result history so far, it is not realistic to expect the figures, which have got into a rut, would start taking big steps - the previous similar decreases have proven to be false alarms [Figure 40.].

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, attitudes towards which largely depend on safety considerations. Two out of three (64%) agree with the view 'The authorities have coped well with the safety control of nuclear power plants in Finland'. Only about one in eight disagree (12%). The current distribution is slightly more trusting than a year before due to which the decrease in the previous survey has partly turned backwards. In the results during this millennium, trust has been more extensive than in the results of the 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 41.].

The safety of the new nuclear power plant under construction also receives a reprieve to a certain point. The statement 'When the fifth nuclear power plant is completed, it will be even safer than the existing plants in Finland, which have also proved to be safe as such' is accepted by more than two fifths of respondents (44%). The estimate is rejected by one in five people (19%). Although the result does not directly deviate from the previous one, it provides the impression that the decrease in trust that took place little by little over years has now ended. Undoubtedly, the reasons behind the decreasing trend have included the problems of the construction project that have been widely present in public. Even though the problems encountered during the construction of the nuclear power plant do not mean a weaker final result, the discussion regarding the construction problems also detracts from the image of the power plant itself [Figure 42.].

Public opinion was also surveyed in more detail for this part. A new statement 'Delays in the construction of the fifth nuclear power plant is not a sign of its unsafety, but reflects the extremely strict safety regulations of the Finnish supervisory authorities and the orderer of the power plant' receives significantly approving attitudes. More than half of respondents (53%) agree with this statement, about one in five (21%) reject it. If the problems do not exactly strengthen the safety of the new nuclear power plant, they do not weaken it either. Even though overall strictness and the so-called 'big brother mentality' of national control is criticised in several everyday issues, it is also praised when it comes to larger issues that concern overall safety [Figure 43.].

Naturally, the government does not have the sole right to make decisions in energy issues. Companies also make energy-related decisions, and their strategic policies are more influential when the more the conventional steering power of society has been shifted to the markets. Independent decision-making by companies generates mistrust amongst the public, however. Only one fourth (25%) of respondents accepts the idea that energy companies should be able to decide for themselves which energy sources they use for producing electricity. This right is rejected by half of respondents (54%). The demand for control has somewhat decreased from last year but more or less follows the same rather unsystematic bumpy level of recent years. In addition, the long-term development does not indicate any larger transfers. The current distribution is practically the same as in the starting point of the follow-up in 2000 [Figure 44.].

The question concerning the siting of 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 sites of the current nuclear reactors should be utilised. The proposition concerning this, 'If new nuclear power plants are built, they should be located in the locations of the current nuclear power plants' receives far more defenders (57%) than opponents (18%). However, the proposition is not considered quite as good as a year ago. In the special municipalities of the survey - that are strongly connected to the issues in the survey - the idea is, on average, supported more than in the rest of Finland (Loviisa 77%, Eurajoki 69%).