Views on Finland's electricity generation system and its development were also studied in the survey. Attitudes towards the deregulation of competition and the increase of market-based energy generation and distribution were the principal foci of attention. Questions concerning this subject matter were added to the survey at the end of the 1990s as the process of change toward the national and international deregulation of the markets progressed and its consequences started to become visible in the everyday lives of electricity consumers. In the current survey, the theme received a smaller emphasis than usual.

On the general level of principles, market-orientation receives a polarised result. A little more than two out of five (42%) of respondents agree with the statement 'Electricity should be an ordinary commodity, and the markets should freely determine the production, pricing and sale of this commodity'. There are two percentage points less for those who reject this statement (40%). The distribution is more accepting than in the previous survey. Because the result in the previous survey represented by a narrow margin the most sceptical attitudes in the entire follow-up period, the change reflects a return towards the preceding settings. The whole time series shows different kinds of stages. Opinions were most positive in 1998 as it was the first year in which households could change their electricity provider and this raised the expectations of people. After the change was introduced, expectations gradually weakened for several years (from 1999 to 2003), which was followed by a stable phase that lasted for two years (from 2004 to 2005). During the three years preceding the current survey (from 2006 to 2008), criticism towards the markets reached its highest levels [Figure 46.].

Another statement with reversed formulation suggests more clearly a change in the increasing scepticism. The proportion of those who think that 'free competition is rather unsuitable for the energy sector, which should be clearly steered and controlled by society' has remained large (59%), but it is much smaller than in the previous survey (66%). Now, 27% of respondents disagree with the statement, emphasising the role and control of government officials (previously 19%). A year before, this indicator showed the most critical attitudes towards the market during the entire follow-up period [Figure 47.]. When combined, the indicators provide an unchanged message, despite the break in the trend showed by both of them. Although people trust the beneficial power of the so-called invisible hand of the markets as such, electricity generation is regarded as an infrastructure in which the market powers should not be given a leading position. In addition, it is interesting that in the conditions of an economic crisis - when it is common that the search for scapegoats in general is increased - the market system is not blamed more than previously, but actually less.

However, all manner of competition is not strongly wished for. This is shown in the reactions to a new statement 'It would be good if foreign companies were also introduced into nuclear power production in order to increase competition in Finnish electricity generation'. One in four respondents (25%) agree with this, while more than one half of respondents (53%) disagree [Figure 48.]. Not a single population group likes the idea. The proposal receives relatively the most support from those who are also otherwise in favour of market competition; for example, supporters of the National Coalition Party (37% approves) and from those in executive positions (37%). One detail concerning this is that the residents of Eurajoki consider the idea of foreign nuclear power operators especially unpleasant (70% rejects; no figure).

In accordance with the indicators not included in the current survey, the trends typical for the past few years have been the increasing emphasis on national self-sufficiency in energy generation and preferring public ownership. The opinions on public ownership can be deemed, at least partly, to be a result of the somewhat high criticism towards the markets. On the other hand, the ideal of self-sufficiency has been reflected as a will to remain independent of the economic trends of the international electricity trade and as a general shunning of imports. Based on this background, the attitudes towards the import of nuclear power are perhaps somewhat unexpectedly positive. Although the statement 'The import of nuclear power to Finland in acceptable' provides more rejection (45%) than acceptance (35%), the difference is not great [Figure 49.]. The result could be partially explained by the fact that the compass points of import - that are not all considered positive - are not specified in the question. However, together with the previous result, it can be concluded that Finns do not prefer nuclear power that is produced by foreigners in Finland, or if it is imported into Finland.

In addition to imports, attitudes towards export of nuclear power were surveyed. The statement 'In all cases, securing self-sufficiency with nuclear power leads to the conclusion that it must be possible to export nuclear power every now and then' receives more approving attitudes. Less than one half (46%) agree, less than one fifth (18%) disagree. However, there is no reason to interpret the result as an export permit. The interpretation must also take into consideration the starting assumption included in the question - in the situation that the survey concerns, there is already 'enough' nuclear power and it is a question of what should be done with the excess electricity (no figure).

Naturally, the key test for the current market system is its impact on the price of electricity. The follow-up indicator that studies respondents' experiences of the price impacts of market competition shows clear trends. This indicator, already proven unusually inconsistent, now shows a new twist: a little less than one third (31%) of respondents now consider that competition has reduced the price of electricity used by their own household. Almost one half of respondents disagree (46%). Despite the emphasis towards criticism, the distribution is almost historically approving. A result that was as positive was last achieved in 2001. Comparison with the previous survey is aggravated by the fact that the result in 2008 was the most pessimistic in the entire history of the survey (59% rejected the statement, 16% accepted). In addition, years 2003 and 2006 stand out as clear peaks of criticism in the time series. The assessments still reflected fairly positive expectations at the beginning of the follow-up period. In the early years of the new millennium, the share of those who believed in the positive effect of competition decreased, totalling a rather sizeable change. Not only changing feelings but also changing facts can be observed behind these turns in the trend. There appears to be a connection not only with the price development of electricity and the public discussion of it but also with the actual electricity price development [Figure 50.].