Especially in uncertain times, energy discussions often come down to one question: how much does energy cost right now? Price is a visible figure that changes constantly, so it is easy to worry about. But a company’s greatest energy risk is rarely the one shown on the bill.
According to Auris Energia’s Deputy CEO Perttu Lahtinen, the greatest danger for Finnish companies is becoming locked into the wrong kind of system.
In practice, such a system is inflexible and tied to a single energy source and technology. It is an expensive choice in the long run.
The direction of Finland’s energy market is fairly clear at present. The market is moving towards renewable energy sources, many sites are seeking alternatives to combustion, and electrification is advancing.
This makes a system tied to one fuel or technology more vulnerable than before. Lahtinen points out that a return to the old, stable energy market is unlikely.
Market changes are here to stay.
Invest in the future in good time
According to Lahtinen, a common mistake in energy decisions is assuming that today’s situation will continue. The old system works reasonably well. Energy is cheap enough. Customers are not applying pressure. There appears to be no immediate reason to act, so investment in the future can wait.
Then something changes. A geopolitical crisis, a regulatory package or a market disruption arrives, and a decision has to be made quickly, with fewer options than would have been available in calmer times.
“The transition to something new should be made proactively. When, for example, the next prolonged crisis hits, a company may pay a high price for a decision it failed to make at the right time,” Lahtinen says.
The same illusion affects how prices are interpreted. If oil happens to be cheap today, that price can become the basis for investment decisions, creating an unnoticed assumption that it will stay the same. This is human, but strategically dangerous.
“At that point, it is worth asking yourself whether you genuinely believe fuel prices will remain at that level, or whether there may be upward pressure,” Lahtinen says.
Postponement is not the only way to make the wrong decision. Lahtinen notes that the opposite approach carries its own risk. When uncertainty is high, living with it feels uncomfortable, and a company may make a premature decision simply to feel in control. But that sense of control can be an illusion. A large commitment made in haste, without analysing the alternatives, may also remove something that would have value when the next change comes.
A good decision keeps options open
For Lahtinen, this all leads to one guiding principle: “A good energy solution is not only efficient. It must also be adaptable.”
The right decision does not necessarily maximise today’s savings; it leaves the most room to manoeuvre tomorrow. In practice, this means a system that can use more than one energy source. When prices are high, a company might, for example, have biogas in reserve to reduce costs.
Electricity prices will fluctuate more sharply in the future. Only a sufficiently flexible system can respond to those changes.
Lahtinen raises one more question worth asking before every major energy decision.
“Ultimately, it is about whether a company uses its own resources to develop its energy system or its core business,” Lahtinen says.
This is not a technical question. It is a strategic one. The answer determines who bears the technology, price and regulatory risks—and how much room the company has to move when the market changes again.