Abolishing data centre electricity tax relief

Key points of the debate

The debate focused on abolishing the electricity tax relief for data centres and transferring them to the general tax category. The government parties and part of the opposition considered abolishing the tax subsidy justified to strengthen state revenues and manage the load on the electricity grid. The SDP and part of the Centre Party, on the other hand, opposed the tax increase, fearing it would jeopardise significant international investments and make the operating environment unpredictable.

• –Will the electricity tax increase drive data centre investments from Finland to neighbouring countries?
• –Will the high electricity consumption of data centres cause electricity prices to rise for ordinary consumers?
• –Is it sensible to abolish the electricity tax benefit and replace it with a separate new business subsidy?

• National Coalition PartyIn favour

  The proposal supports balancing public finances and guides operators towards energy efficiency and the utilisation of waste heat. The conditions for future investments will be safeguarded through the overall package and a new subsidy model currently under preparation.

  ”Nyt tehtävä veroluokan muutos kannustaa kehittämään toimintaa entistä energiatehokkaammaksi ja kestävämmäksi.”

• Finns PartyIn favour

  Abolishing the tax subsidy will strengthen central government finances and curb both the load on the electricity system and the risks borne by taxpayers. Finland is seen as remaining an attractive investment target thanks to its cold climate and clean energy, even without a tax discount.

  ”On kuitenkin eri asia, pitääkö veronmaksajan tukea verotuella esimerkiksi pornon laskentaa, kryptovaluuttalouhintaa tai tietoturvallisesti epämääräisiä sovelluksia.”

• Social DemocratsAgainst

  The proposed 44-fold electricity tax increase is considered highly damaging and short-sighted for the national economy, driving multi-billion investments to other countries. Instead of abolishing the tax advantage, the lower tax category should be tied to binding conditions regarding waste heat, demand response and employment.

  ”Edellä olevan perusteella ehdotamme vastalauseen 1 mukaisesti, että hallituksen esitykseen 156 sisältyvä lakiesitys hylätään ja hyväksytään yksi vastalauseen lausuma.”

• Centre PartySplit

  The group saw it on the one hand as necessary to assess the justification for the electricity tax subsidy, but on the other hand warned that erratic policy created by the proposal and a new replacement subsidy would drive major investments away from the regions.

  ”Se, että hallitus puhuu uudesta tukielementistä konesaleille, ei tässä kovinkaan paljoa lohduta. Mitä on mahdollisesti tulossa, millä aikataululla ja millä ehdoilla?”

• GreensIn favour

  Abolishing the tax subsidy is seen as justified for central government finances and as a necessary means of curbing excessive tax expenditure. However, strict environmental and waste heat criteria are required in the upcoming business subsidy model.

  ”Vihreiden mielestä esitetty esitys on varsin perusteltu.”

• Left AllianceIn favour

  Abandoning the unjustified tax discount for data centres is right, as the activities of giant corporations provide little employment but consume vast amounts of electricity. However, the group opposes granting a new replacement direct business subsidy to data centres.

  ”Nykyiselle konesalien verotuelle ei ole perusteita, ja tuemme hallituksen esitystä verotuen poistosta.”

• Non-attachedIn favour

  Raising the tax category is seen as part of responsible economic policy that strengthens state finances and guides companies towards responsible and energy-efficient investments.

  ”Konesalit ovat tärkeä osa modernia taloutta ja digitalisaation infrastruktuuria, mutta niiden toimintaedellytykset eivät perustu pelkästään sähköveroon.”

This digest was generated by AI from 58 speeches 13 Sep 2026. Group positions are read from the speeches, not from votes; quotations were checked verbatim against the record.