PGIQ Rating v2 (reliability-adjusted) · as of June 2026

🇫🇮 Finland

Strong, with known trade-offs, and the path is improving
Tier 2 Strong · Composite 69/100, #9 of 79 markets · Outlook Positive · Med-High confidence · how we score

Cheap, clean and openly courting hyperscalers (Microsoft). A welcoming Nordic market with firm nuclear and abundant wind.

See live grid data →

One market,
four reads

BuildTier 2Siting rating SellGrade BOfftake PlanLightLoad pressure MonitorStrongGrid strength

The same market, four decisions. Open any lens to see this market ranked against the rest.

Time to energize · file to power

~24 mo

File a large load today, powered ~2028. Typical range 17 to 31 months, modelled.

Application & site 4mo · Grid study & connection offer 8mo · Agreement & works planning 6mo · Construction & energization 6mo

End-to-end wait for a large new load, from an unstated start to an unstated end. Earlier milestones (initial, phased, temporary or conditional energization) are reported separately. A typical case, not a firm quote. · Source: Argus: Nordic data centres and power demand · Compare markets →

The same market, read four ways

BuildSellPlanMonitor

Finland is a moderate market to sell power into

Grade B (Moderate)

Offtake score 71/100

Demand 34, build feasibility 73, combined into the score. For a seller: where buyers already pay, how tight supply is, and how feasible new build is here.

Price to beat

A 100 MW load on our standard case pays about $58/MWh delivered here. A competitive supply offer works against that level.

Connection

Connection difficulty Low, typical wait 1-3 years.

Regulatory momentum

Mixed, worsening. From 1 July 2026 Finland moves data-centre electricity from the lower tax category II to the general category I, raising the power tax by about 2.19 cents per kWh, and Fingrid is restricting new connections in some areas until 2027 while it consults on the KJV2026 demand-connection code (draft 12 June 2026). A replacement incentive for value-added data centres is due in autumn 2026.

Beyond the grid

Finland leads on turning data-centre waste heat into district heating: Fortum captures heat from large Espoo-area sites to supply about 40 percent of its regional demand, a real offset to siting friction.

See it on the Offtake Grade →

Finland: room to spare at system level, light demand pressure

Room to spare 95/100

System-level room, not local capacity

Local capacity: not assessed. We have found no operator publication of area or substation capacity for this market, so whether the bus serving a candidate site can take the load is an open question. Absence of a finding here is not evidence that capacity exists.

Two reads for a grid planner: how much room the system as a whole looks to have (Room to spare), and how hard demand is already pushing (Light). The first is a market-level estimate from connection ease, forward adequacy and reliability margin. It is not local deliverability. Capacity at a specific substation is not assessed for this market, and a market can look roomy while the bus you want has nothing available. Confirm local capacity with the utility before relying on it.

Demand growth

Moderate load growth in our read, the pull on your system.

Load Pipeline Reality → Where demand is hungry → Connection friction →

Grid Risk Annex BETA

Strong

Standard terms likely · grid strength 70/100

A cited, dated grid-risk read on Finland for a capital provider, the banks and private-credit lenders, infrastructure funds and insurers holding or underwriting a power or data-centre exposure here. Drop it into a credit memo and watch each factor over the life of the exposure.

Read it against your asset. For a load asset (Buy), weight connection access and energization timing. For a generation or offtake asset (Sell), weight offtake demand, curtailment (when a plant is told to stop feeding the grid) and cost realisation. For a grid or transmission asset (Move), weight load-pipeline reality and buildout risk.

Rating and track record

PGIQ Tier 2 Strong, outlook Positive, Med-High confidence. Scored on a public, dated, falsifiable record you can cite in a credit memo.

Delivery reliability

Reviewed; no delivery reliability flags found in the bulk and local outage record.

Future firm supply

Reviewed; firm supply ample.

Cost certainty

Recurring cost about $58/MWh (band $42 to $78) for the standard 100 MW case, basis triangulated. Excludes connection capital.

Regulatory / stroke-of-pen

Execution risk

Connection friction Low, the risk the project or load actually energizes on time.

Ongoing monitor

Track this market's rating actions and the Global Power Index as a covenant-style monitor over the life of the exposure.

Monitoring plan

Covenant-style triggers to watch over the life of the exposure: a change in the PGIQ rating or outlook; a dated regulatory move (stroke-of-pen risk); a capacity-auction or cost-band shift; a forward firm-supply adequacy warning; and a rise in queue drop-out or connection friction. Track them on this market page and the Global Power Index, or as Analyst Desk alerts.

Sources: Nordic data-center market · AFRY

This is a directional grid-risk screen, not a credit rating, and not investment, engineering or procurement advice.

The formatted, cited Grid Risk Annex export is an Analyst Desk feature.See the Grid Exposure Monitor →

Regulatory momentum

The regulatory and permitting environment is increasingly the binding variable for a new large load.

Mixed↓ worsening

Why: From 1 July 2026 Finland moves data-centre electricity from the lower tax category II to the general category I, raising the power tax by about 2.19 cents per kWh, and Fingrid is restricting new connections in some areas until 2027 while it consults on the KJV2026 demand-connection code (draft 12 June 2026). A replacement incentive for value-added data centres is due in autumn 2026.

What would change the read: The autumn 2026 incentive scheme and Fingrid's capacity build offsetting the tax rise for large, heat-integrated loads.

Beyond the grid: Finland leads on turning data-centre waste heat into district heating: Fortum captures heat from large Espoo-area sites to supply about 40 percent of its regional demand, a real offset to siting friction. AFRY

The five pillars behind the tier

The pillar signature: Access, Availability, Cost, Momentum, Carbon, taller is stronger. The same shape repeats across every market so peers compare at a glance.

Access30%72

Open and welcoming to data centers.

Availability25%70

Good availability (nuclear plus wind plus imports).

Cost25%68

Competitive cost.

Momentum15%55

Real momentum (Microsoft-anchored).

Carbon5%90

Very clean (~20-70 g).

Default weights, which lean toward cost and access rather than carbon: Access 30 · Availability 25 · Cost 25 · Momentum 15 · Carbon 5. Momentum reflects the data-center build already underway, not just stated intentions.

Seller view: Read these the other way: momentum is your customer pipeline, cost is your revenue ceiling, and access is how hard it is to build and sell here, not only to connect.

Reliability overlay

Reliability reviewed: no material concerns were found, so the rating is unchanged. Reliability is reported as five separate layers, never as one combined label, because they answer different questions and a strong answer on one does not cover a gap in another: what has actually failed on the bulk system, what a forward assessment expects of firm supply, how the local network performs, what your contract actually promises, and what your site is designed to ride through. Any one of them can cap the tier.

Historical bulk-system performance: No reliability flags found

Since Olkiluoto 3 (about 1.6 GW) reached regular output in 2023, national resource-adequacy assessments show no concern against the reliability standard (LOLE 2.1 hours/year), and OL3's early-years reliability was high in international comparison.

measured · Finnish EPR starts supplying electricity (WNN)

Historical utility-territory delivery performance: No reliability flags found

Forward resource adequacy (assessed): No adequacy flags

Contractual service terms: not assessed

We have not compiled what firm service actually promises here: whether it is firm, non-firm or interruptible, the conditions under which you can be curtailed, the redundancy required of you, and the transfer time behind any N-1 commitment. Treat this as an open diligence item, not as an indication that service is firm.

Ask the utility for the tariff or service agreement terms before relying on firm supply.

Designed site resilience: not applicable at market level

Utility feeds, UPS, storage, on-site generation, islanding, black start and the residual energy you still expect to lose are properties of a specific site design, not of a market. This layer only exists once there is a site, and we never assert it for you.

Confidence: Med-High. Each input is labelled as measured, modelled, or drawn from a specific event, and is framed as a risk to a prospective large new load, not as a verdict on any utility or grid operator. Forward adequacy is an assessment of what is expected, not a measurement of what has happened; it is a forecast and is labelled as one.

Seller view: Tight forward capacity (firm supply promised for future years) is scarcity that firm generation and storage get paid for; an adequacy flag is a demand signal for new supply, not only a risk to a load.

Supply relief outlook

Will the power crunch ease before your load energizes? This nets the demand racing for capacity against the new supply likely to arrive and the old supply leaving. A cross-side read, using the same data a seller sees the other way.

Balanced

Demand pressure

Moderate load growth competing for the same capacity.

Can new supply arrive

Regulatory momentum mixed, worsening.

What this means: Supply and demand look broadly balanced; the outcome hinges on the drivers below.

Connection friction

How hard it is to connect a large new load here, and how long it takes. Part of the PowerGridIQ Connection Friction Feed. Labelled proxy; confidence Med.

Friction level

Low

Typical connection wait

1-3 years

Source: Argus: Nordic data centres and power demand

This market's friction level, wait band and full story are free here. The precise typical wait in months, and every market ranked side by side, are the Analyst Desk.

Favorable and building: XTX's Kajaani mega-campus, low-carbon surplus.

Finland pairs low-carbon power with available grid capacity and is drawing large builds such as XTX's Kajaani campus (22 MW connecting in 2026, up to 250 MW at full capacity). The Nordic surplus is falling as regional demand grows, but Finland remains among the more connectable European markets.

What builds the 24-month wait

Application & site4 mo

Grid study & connection offer8 mo

Agreement & works planning6 mo

Construction & energization6 mo

Typical time to energization24 months

How the typical connection wait breaks down by stage. Stages overlap in practice and vary by project; the split is our estimate anchored to the operator process, and the total is the representative time to energization. Anchored to the operator process (Argus: Nordic data centres and power demand).

Data-center share of demand pressure: Rising. Sources: Argus: Nordic data centres and power demand. The full cross-market connection dataset is available through the Connection Friction Feed.

Seller view: Connection difficulty is both your own time-to-revenue and a barrier limiting competing supply from reaching this market.

Realized cost band

What a large electricity user pays for power here on one declared case, 100 MW contracted demand, 95% load factor, HV service, per megawatt-hour. Not the wholesale price and not the sticker tariff: energy plus the grid, delivery and other charges that land on the bill. It is a range, because real contracts vary, and it is labelled by how it was built.

Recurring cost, delivered

$42 to $78 per MWh

Midpoint about $58 per MWh

How this band was built

triangulated

From 2 public fragments

What builds the $58 midpoint

$38

$15

Wholesale energy$38

Network charges$15

Taxes & levies$5

All-in delivered$58 /MWh

How the $58/MWh figure is built up, component by component, for 100 MW contracted demand, 95% load factor, HV service. The split is our estimate; the total is the midpoint of the compiled band (triangulated). Recurring cost only: customer-funded connection capital is a separate one-off and is not included. Among the lowest non-household energy prices in the EU, helped by nuclear and Nordic hydro, with modest network charges. Anchored to published figures (EU electricity price components (Eurostat)).

Where the cost lands

$58

Low $42Midpoint $58High $78

A band, not a single price: the cheaper end is a well-structured contract on favourable terms, the higher end a less optimised one. The midpoint is our best central read.

What is in the number: Among the lowest non-household energy prices in the European Union, plus modest network charges.

Finland has the lowest non-household electricity prices in the European Union, helped by nuclear and Nordic hydro. That gives a large load a low, stable band, with the main variability coming from cold-snap winter peaks.

This market's band is free here; the ranked cross-market table with every market's precise midpoint is the Analyst Desk. See the ranked view.

Basis: triangulated from public sources, in US dollars per MWh delivered to a large high-load-factor load, excluding refundable taxes. Sources: Non-household electricity prices, Finland lowest (Eurostat).

Seller view: This delivered price is the level a competitive supply offer must beat, and the revenue ceiling a merchant plant works against here.

Data provenance and freshness

What we hold for this market, field by field. Each tier below is assigned from the evidence actually held for that field, with provenance. A low tier means we looked and it is thin; it is not a verdict on the market.

cost: M3connection: M1reliability: M2carbon: M2regulatory: M2local capacity: not_assessed

Against a Standardized Project Case, the binding field is connection, reliability. That is what a standardized case would turn on here; a readiness result for your own project depends on your own requirements, siting and utility, which this market-level read does not know.

Read against other uses: Discovery and monitoring: M1 · Market comparison: M1 · Project Case with a carbon requirement: M1 · Conditional site diligence: insufficient.

Depth is not a rating strength, a confidence score or a feasibility conclusion. An aggregate is only ever shown for a named use case, and equals the lowest tier across that use case's required fields. Definitions v1.0. See the full coverage matrix.

How solid the data behind this rating is, on two separate axes plus recency. Source reliability is how measured the numbers are, as opposed to triangulated or modelled. Coverage is how many of the decision-relevant data dimensions (reliability, connection, and cost) are compiled for this market. The two are kept apart because they answer different questions: a market can have strong sources on the little that is covered, or broad coverage that still leans on models. Neither grades the rating itself. The rating is a cited opinion, graded separately and falsifiably by the public track record and baseline measurement plan.

Source reliability

Moderate

1 of 3 data layers measured

Coverage

Full

3 of 3 dimensions: reliability, connection, cost

Last reviewed

June 2026

per-layer vintages below

Layer	Method	Vintage	Freshness	Source
PGIQ Rating opinion	opinion	June 2026	Current	PGIQ methodology
Reliability review	measured	2025	Fresh	Finnish EPR starts supplying electricity (WNN)
Connection friction	proxy	2025/26	Fresh	Argus: Nordic data centres and power demand
Realized cost	triangulated	2026	Fresh	Non-household electricity prices, Finland lowest (Eurostat)

Freshness reflects each layer's refresh cadence: reliability annual to three-yearly, capacity-auction and queue yearly, tariffs every year or two. The full cross-market freshness dashboard is at /data-quality.

What this market can and cannot answer yet

No market-level read closes a project case on its own, and saying only that would waste the evidence we do hold. Below is what is established, what is open, and what to do next.

What is established

Recurring cost band $42 to $78 per MWh, midpoint $58, basis triangulated, against the 100 MW archetype
Historical bulk-system performance (measured)

What is open

Forward resource adequacy (assessed)
Historical utility-territory delivery performance (would change the answer)
Contractual service terms (would change the answer)
Designed site resilience
local_capacity evidence

Who would actually serve you

Not compiled for this market. Identify the serving operator before relying on any figure here, because a market-level read is an average over territories.
Who runs the connection process: not yet compiled for this market. This is wayfinding rather than evidence, and its absence is a gap in our compilation, not a fact about the market.

Credible ranges today

Cost $42 to $78 per MWh, midpoint $58 (triangulated)

What could disqualify this market

Winter peak and import reliance.
Scale.

Five questions for the utility or system operator

What is the available capacity at the bulk supply point and substation that would serve this site, and what would a 100 MW request do to it?
Is firm service available at 100 MW, and what curtailment rights would you retain over us once we are energised?
What are the milestone dates from a complete application to full firm energisation, and which network upgrades would a 100 MW load trigger?
What is your own territory's SAIDI and SAIFI for the industrial class, on which major-event standard, and what redundancy serves the candidate substation?
How do you plan to serve incremental large load in our target year, and does that plan depend on generation that is not yet built?

Documents that would advance the case

The area or substation capacity study, and the current queue position list.
The applicable large-load tariff or the draft electric service agreement.
The interconnection or system impact study, and a specimen connection offer.
The utility's own reliability filing and the substation single-line diagram.
The integrated resource plan or the operator's forward adequacy assessment.

Outlook drivers

↑ Upgrade triggers

Hyperscaler build scales.
Heat-reuse incentives add value.

↓ Downgrade triggers

Cold-snap peaks and import dependence.
Small-market scale limits.

Key risks

Winter peak and import reliance.
Scale.

Peer comparison

Trades like

Sweden (clean, open Nordic)

Ahead

on openness

Behind

on scale

Evidence behind this rating

The real-world events that test our Tier 2 call for Finland: 1 supports it. Each is dated and cited, so you can check the rating against what is actually happening on the ground.

Microsoft builds a Finnish data-center region, recycling server heat into district heating ✓ Supports the rating

2025MomentumMateriality: med

Microsoft is developing a southern-Finland data-center region across Espoo, Kirkkonummi and Vihti, with a Fortum partnership to reuse server heat as district heating for tens of thousands of homes, one of the world's largest such schemes, and has secured land near Vaasa for a second site. Sustained hyperscale investment confirms the clean, low-cost, reliable profile behind the rating.

Source: Microsoft News Centre Europe ↗

Cited, dated developments tagged to the pillar they bear on, and whether they support or challenge the current tier. A material item flags the market for analyst review and may drive a rating action.

🔔 Get alerts for Finland

Be notified the moment this market's PGIQ Rating, outlook, or a material development changes. Free while we validate demand.

Rating history

June 2026

New ratingNew rating: Tier 2 Strong assigned.

🔒 The full time series behind Finland, how its score, recurring cost, and interconnection queue (the line to connect to the grid) have moved month by month, is part of the Analyst Desk. The rating actions above are always free.

Every rating action is dated and explained, and the log is only ever added to, never edited. Reviews happen on a regular schedule and whenever a significant event occurs. "Affirmed" means we reviewed a development and the tier held; "Under review" means a significant item is being assessed and the rating could change.

Score history

How Finland's reliability-adjusted score and tier have moved, month by month. Part of your Analyst Desk.

Loading history…

How does Finland compare to the other 78 markets?

This page is our full read on Finland alone, and it is free. To decide where a large load should actually go, you need every market side by side, ranked on recurring cost and time-to-connect, with the history and alerts when your shortlist moves. That is the Analyst Desk.

With your Analyst Desk, compare Finland against every market side by side, ranked on recurring cost and time-to-connect, with the full history and shortlist alerts.

+ Add to your shortlist Recurring cost, ranked Connection friction, ranked Get the Analyst Desk →

Cite as: PowerGridIQ Rating, "Finland" (Tier 2 Strong), as of June 2026. A proprietary, directional screen for siting a large electricity load; not a connection guarantee, and not investment, engineering or procurement advice. Sources and methodology at powergridiq.com/methodology. © PowerGridIQ.