Finland sides with Sweden against Brussels over grid congestion-rent rules

Finland sides with Sweden against Brussels over grid congestion-rent rules Finland's energy minister told Montel the Commission goes "too far" in demanding TSOs ring-fence 25% of unused congestion rents, hardening Nordic resistance to the grids package. Finland's energy minister told Montel on Monday (2026-06-08) that the European Commission is "going too far" in demanding that transmission system operators earmark 25% of their unused congestion rents for new capacity and storage.⁵ The intervention turns a single-country standoff into a Nordic bloc. Sweden had already pushed back hard against the rule, and now its closest interconnected neighbour is backing it in public, raising the political cost for Brussels of forcing the measure through and complicating a grids package the Commission wants settled.^5,1 Congestion rents are the income grid operators collect when power flows from a cheap bidding zone to an expensive one across a constrained border. The Commission's draft would compel operators to set aside a quarter of the unused portion for new capacity and storage rather than direct it freely. Finland's minister said that goes beyond what Brussels should dictate.⁵ Sweden's resistance has not stayed rhetorical. Swedish energy minister Ebba Busch paused all interconnector projects to other EU states in the week of 2026-05-11, including a 1 GW link, a step that turns a revenue argument into a threat against physical grid build-out.¹ A source close to the Swedish government told Montel on Tuesday (2026-05-19) that Stockholm would continue talks with the Commission, particularly on the rules covering new capacity and energy storage. The door is not shut. But a construction freeze plus a second member state lining up behind Sweden shifts the negotiating balance.¹ Finland is backing Stockholm even as Sweden threatens to cut the connections that bind the two grids together. The Nordic market depends on those links to move hydro and nuclear power between zones, and a paused 1 GW interconnector is capacity the region had counted on.^1,5 The read-through for power traders sits in the spreads. Swedish SE4 day-ahead settled at $89.55 on Monday (2026-06-08), well above SE3 at $72.83 and Finland at $58.91, the kind of zonal gap that congestion income reflects and that new interconnection is meant to narrow. Freeze the links and those spreads stay wide.¹ Finland also has reason to value secure power links. Since it closed its border with Russia and was forced to trade via the Baltic Sea, the country has leaned harder on its Nordic neighbours, the Economist reported.³ The dispute lands as Nordic demand is set to climb. Finnish data centre power demand is expected to more than triple to 1.2 GW by 2030 from around 368 MW, roughly 2% of national consumption, the Finnish Data Center Association told a Helsinki conference on Wednesday (2026-05-20). That load needs grid, and grid needs the capacity spending the congestion-rent fight is stalling.² Entso-E, the body representing EU transmission operators, has called the congestion-income row a distraction. Its board chairman told Montel the fight over how rents are used is pulling attention from more pressing parts of the grids package. The Nordic escalation does the opposite of what Entso-E wants.⁴ Both sides have a case. Congestion rents are highest where borders are most constrained, which is exactly where new capacity is most needed; operators want discretion over the money, while the Commission wants a guaranteed slice funnelled into the build-out. That is why the standoff has not resolved quickly.^5,4 What is not yet clear is how far Sweden will take the interconnector freeze, or whether Finland's support stiffens Stockholm's resolve or simply gives Brussels a reason to soften the 25% figure in talks. The Swedish source signalled openness on the capacity and storage provisions, which is where any compromise would start.^1,5 Watch whether the paused 1 GW link is formally cancelled or merely delayed, and whether any other Nordic or Baltic state joins Finland in opposing the earmark. The wider the coalition against the rule, the more likely the Commission blinks. Until then the constrained borders stay constrained, and the zonal spreads in SE3, SE4 and Finland have one less reason to converge.^1,5