As I understand it, the aim here is to steer electricity storage systems to areas where the grid has capacity. From the power system’s perspective, it’s very challenging if storage is located in the same regions as large flexible consumption; this increases regional consumption peaks, meaning it requires investments so that there is capacity for both consumption and storage simultaneously. In practice, flexible consumption is often at full blast at the exact same time storage systems would want to charge—i.e., when electricity is very cheap → the grid has to be sized according to the combined maximum nominal capacity of both.
So yeah, as far as I understand, that matter doesn’t really make much of a difference for the company. In practice, it just directs future electricity storage to Northern Finland and next to existing power generation facilities where transmission capacity is available. The system can still accommodate the same volume of electricity storage; they are now simply being guided to locate in a way that doesn’t require massive and unnecessary main grid investments.