​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​From a business perspective, the transition is fair if its governance is clear and the processes are smooth. Professor Kati Miettunen from the University of Turku highlighted some of the problems associated with this. ‘For example, if we want to combine solar energy production with agricultural activities, there are still no regulations on the principles for using arable land for solar energy production without reducing agricultural subsidies. In these matters, we would hope for reasonably rapid progress and listening to the parties involved,’ she said.

​

According to Nina Wessberg, Principal Scientist at VTT, it is a question of fairness for industry whether there is enough green electricity for everyone. She added that this is limited and enabled in particular by wind and solar power generation capacity, but also by other energy-related infrastructure, some of which already exists and some of which is planned to be built.

​

From Finland's perspective, the biggest question of fairness is whether the value of the energy produced here will remain in Finland or flow to other countries. The panellists hoped that, instead of exporting electricity and hydrogen abroad, the energy would be used to increase the value remaining in Finland, for example by using bulk products as raw materials in the chemical industry.

​

Professor Pami Aalto from the University of Tampere described how regions are currently asking whether well-being and growth are possible evenly across Finland. In addition to regional equity, he focused on local communities the size of microgrids. ‘The transition opens up opportunities for local communities to utilise their own resources, use them efficiently and support the system with demand side management, especially in exceptional circumstances,’ he said.

 

Professor Eva Pongracz from the University of Oulu described how citizens are currently considering how the disadvantages and benefits of the energy transition will affect them. Do individual citizens have enough information and expertise to make their own decisions, and do they have the opportunity to influence the progress of the transition?

 

Pongracz held businesses and industry responsible for two things. Firstly, services should also be provided to those who do not own a detached house or are on a low income. ‘The current target energy consumers, to whom most services are offered now, represent only a fraction of the population,’ she explained.

 

Secondly, there should be transparent communication about the uncertainties associated with the transition and how the risks are being managed. Otherwise, individual citizens may be left wondering whether the burden of the energy transition will fall on their shoulders.

 

This concern was also reflected in the questions collected from the audience during the discussion: will I end up paying for this?

 

Essi Laitinen, a doctoral researcher at VTT who moderated the event, summed up the discussion by concluding that that the benefits and disadvantages must be distributed evenly across regions, responsibility must not be left to citizens, and information sharing plays a key role if and when the energy transition is to be achieved fairly.​​

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​