Electricity transmission prices have been raised so much that the regulator may step in – see the list of price increases

Electricity transmission prices have generally risen in Finland this year. The increase comes from two sources. The government raised the security-of-supply charge collected with electricity tax. In addition, dozens of network companies raised their own fees. These changes make electricity bills larger even before the electricity itself is purchased.

According to Energiavirasto director Veli-Pekka Saajo, 47 of the country’s 77 transmission companies raised their prices this year. Helen Sähköverkko, one of the largest distribution companies, increased prices by an average of seven percent from October. The security-of-supply charge rose from 0.013 cents to 0.085 cents per kilowatt-hour.

The trend may continue to affect household budgets. Electricity energy prices are also expected to be higher than last winter. Some companies cite reliability investments and higher Fingrid charges. Energiavirasto is checking whether all increases stay within the annual eight-percent limit, and excessive charges must later be refunded.

An electricity transmission fee is the charge paid to the company that delivers electricity through its local network. It is separate from the price of the electricity itself. The fee matters because customers pay for both the energy they consume and access to the wires that bring it to their homes. The article discusses these local network charges for households.

The money supports the network’s costs. Companies mention reliability investments, electrification projects, and charges from Fingrid, the national grid company. Reliability work can include replacing overhead lines with underground cables. This protects the network from storms and helps meet legal supply-security requirements.

The charge varies by network area. A detached house using 18,000 kilowatt-hours yearly pays more in some rural regions than in cities. Regulators monitor the companies’ pricing. They also enforce an annual eight-percent increase limit. If a company collects too much, customers must receive the excess back later.

Transmission prices differ greatly between Finnish network areas. The article compares charges for a detached house using 18,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity annually. The highest and lowest prices differ by more than one thousand euros each year. This difference concerns only transmission, not the electricity energy bought from a supplier.

Järvi-Suomen Energia is the most expensive company in the comparison. Its customers pay more than 2,080 euros annually for transmission. Turku Energia Sähköverkot is the cheapest, charging about 960 euros. The article gives the resulting difference as 1,123 euros. Järvi-Suomen Energia serves areas including Mikkeli, Savonlinna, Heinola, Kangasniemi, and Juva.

The gap reflects local network conditions and customer density. Sparse areas may have a great deal of network serving relatively few customers. Companies say that raises costs per customer. Urban networks can spread costs across more customers, and the article says much of the weather-proofing work in cities is already complete.

If a transmission company raises prices beyond the permitted limit, customers do not simply lose the money permanently. Energiavirasto investigates whether the company followed the rules. The regulator checks an annual price-increase ceiling of eight percent. This protects customers from increases that are not allowed under the pricing rules.

The article says at least three companies appear to exceed the limit. If customers have been charged too much, the company must compensate them later. The refund can be required when a company raises prices more than its available pricing allowance permits. Customers do not need to apply for protection, according to Saajo’s comments.

PKS Sähkönsiirto is given as an example. It raised charges so much last year that refunds must now begin. From October, a small credit will go to two customer groups: people living in apartment buildings and cottage owners. The regulator’s calculations for the latest years were not yet complete.

Some transmission companies say higher prices are necessary because their networks cover large, sparsely populated areas. Construction and maintenance costs are then spread across fewer customers. The same amount of network can cost more per customer than it does in a dense city. This helps explain why rural and regional companies appear near the expensive end of the comparison.

PKS Sähkönsiirto describes construction as concentrated in areas with a lot of network but few customers. Its network covers 23,000 kilometres, yet only about one third has been made supply-secure. The company says legally required reliability work means putting overhead lines underground, where storms are less likely to damage them.

The financial pressure may grow. The whole network must meet the requirements by 2036. PKS Sähkönsiirto’s managing director says current fees would not be enough. Meeting the deadline would require transmission charges paid by customers to rise by more than 80 percent, according to him.

Overhead power lines are exposed to storms and other weather damage. Burying them underground places the cables out of direct exposure. That can make the network more resistant to storm-related faults and improve the reliability of electricity supply. The article presents this work as a central part of legally required supply-security investments.

PKS Sähkönsiirto describes the work as hiding the overhead electricity network underground to protect it from storms. The company operates 23,000 kilometres of network, but only about one third has so far been made supply-secure. The remaining work is therefore substantial, especially across sparsely populated regions.

The requirement affects future prices and construction schedules. The whole network is supposed to meet the reliability requirements by 2036. PKS Sähkönsiirto says it cannot reach that goal at current fee levels. Its managing director estimates that customer transmission charges would need to rise by more than 80 percent to complete the work on time.

Electricity transmission networks are regulated because each local area is served by a network company, leaving customers with limited practical choice of wires. In general, building several competing networks would be wasteful. Regulation therefore aims to balance two needs: keeping charges reasonable and ensuring that the network remains safe and reliable. This broader explanation comes from established economic practice; the article focuses on Finland’s oversight system.

In Finland, Energiavirasto monitors transmission companies’ pricing. It checks whether companies stay within an annual eight-percent increase limit. The regulator also examines whether companies had enough pricing room for increases, based on earlier under- or over-revenues. If customers paid too much, the money must be returned.

Regulation does not prevent every price rise. Companies cite reliability and electrification investments, along with higher Fingrid charges. The article says Energiavirasto found the companies’ finances generally strong but still expected more moderate pricing. The challenge is funding major network work without allowing unjustified increases.