Labor market issues

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Industry's report NU9 Electricity Market Issues on the National Audit Office's report on the state's measures for the development of the electricity system.

Madam Speaker! Swedish energy policy over the last decade has been characterized by ideology, power games, and irresponsibility. All sorts of regulations, subsidies, and taxes have created incorrect incentives and given us an electricity market in imbalance. It is a market that swings between two extremes, where electricity surpluses are alternated with power shortages. The past policy has led to the fact that we now have the worst power balance in the entire EU. The past policy has also led to, at times, skyrocketing and, above all, volatile prices, which has damaged both the households' economy and the companies' competitiveness.

Madam Speaker! The National Audit Office has, as stated, audited the state's - read previous governments' - measures for the development of the electricity system. We Sverigedemokrater have long pointed out the deficiencies with the previously conducted energy policy. The result of the National Audit Office's audit therefore does not come as a surprise. On the contrary, it constitutes in large parts a confirmation of what we have questioned. It is, however, good that we now finally get a completely independent audit that confirms the major deficiencies we have pointed out.

The criticism from the Swedish National Audit Office is extensive and concerns, above all, a lack of impact assessments but also unclear agency mandates. According to the Swedish National Audit Office, the previous government has not conducted sufficient impact assessments before making decisions on measures that have had a major impact on the electricity system. This applies, for example, to vital areas such as security of supply, transmission capacity, and competition conditions between different types of power.

Furthermore, the Swedish National Audit Office writes that the majority of the system-impacting decisions that they have audited and found major flaws in stem from some form of political agreement. These are agreements that, according to the Swedish National Audit Office, have led to a failure to conduct sufficient consequence analyses of the decisions made. The lack of consequence analyses has also resulted in a lack of proposals for appropriate management of unintended effects.

As said, the report and the criticism are extensive, but it can probably be summarized by saying that power politics settlements have taken precedence over the goal that Sweden should have an efficient, secure, and competitive energy system.

Madam Speaker! Sweden - a cold, sparsely populated country with long distances - is completely dependent on the availability of electricity and heating. Society-critical functions such as healthcare, communication, transport, water supply, and security are entirely dependent on the availability of electricity. To maintain standards and welfare, viable growing companies that can compete on an international market are required. Cheap and secure electricity supply has simply become more important than ever. Thus, the Swedish electricity market constitutes a fundamental pillar for our welfare and must not be neglected.

Madam Speaker! Today we are largely dependent on and affected by what happens in the rest of the world. Some things we cannot influence, others we can control completely or partially. One thing we can actually influence so far is the national energy policy. It is simply not a law of nature to have the EU's worst power balance and volatile prices. They are largely the result of past policies—the social democratic government's policies.

But there is, of course, hope. Since the change of government one and a half years ago, the coalition parties have worked feverishly to once again create the conditions for a secure and competitive electricity system. We have, for example, in several ways paved the way for the expansion and life extension of nuclear power. We have given Svenska kraftnät a clear mandate to ensure the power reserve requirement. We have also removed the tax on waste incineration and abolished the carbon tax for combined heat and power production.

Everything is about strengthening the balance of power and laying the foundation for the increased future electricity demand. If the leaks in the boat are not repaired, there is no point in loading on even more cargo.

The government has also, in cooperation with us Sverigedemokrater, presented a proposal for a new energy policy direction with a greater focus on power and balance instead of on energy types. We do not focus only on quantity but also on the power system's performance and functionality - quality before quantity, quite simply. The measures are fundamentally about creating the right incentives to achieve a robust, secure, and competitive energy system again.

In conclusion, I want to say that we Sverigedemokrater support the committee's proposal for a decision.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker and Jessica Stegrud! It was an interesting speech in many ways. The member highlights, above all, the National Audit Office's report and the criticism that has been received, not least regarding the lack of impact assessments and that it is, among other things, based on the fact that political agreements have been made.

The Sweden Democrats have now, together with the government, which one almost rules sometimes, also made a political agreement and presented a policy proposal. There is no impact assessment there. They do not even want to call it that but call it an impact description, which seems rather unusual. In proposals, it is usually called impact or impact assessment.

I have a question for Jessica Stegrud. The National Audit Office has, for example, expressed criticism that any unwanted consequences should be handled and reported in the impact assessment. Does Jessica Stegrud think that the impact assessment that has been submitted meets the criteria that the National Audit Office has previously criticized?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker and Rickard Nordin! The work that has now been done lays the foundation. We have begun to clean up after the previous government's policy. I speak all the time about the imbalance, that we have an electricity surplus interspersed with power shortages. This must be addressed before we can do anything else. It is the very foundation of the electricity system.

We have major problems with volatile and skyrocketing prices. There are companies, particularly in southern Sweden, that cannot establish themselves or expand their operations. And the prices have led to major consequences for both inflation and households.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the absence of consequence analyses, I must turn the question back to the member. The National Audit Office was, in fact, very clear on that; no consequence analyses have been carried out. They preferred to sit in government power rather than ensure that we have a robust and prepared electricity system for future power demands and expansions.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Member Stegrud and the Sweden Democrats seem to want to talk more about inflation and volatile prices than about the impact assessment, which my question was about. The fact is that if one looks at the energy agreement from 2016, one sees that there was a significantly more extensive impact assessment in that one than there is in the policy proposal that the Sweden Democrats have signed on to.

In the energy agreement from 2016, there are scenario descriptions and quite a lot of figures and analyses. One can absolutely think that they are insufficient. But it is a world of difference compared to the non-existent impact analysis, which is also only called a description, in what has now been presented.

My question to the member is again whether one is satisfied with the impact assessment that exists. Put the rest of the bill aside! It is the impact assessment that the Swedish National Audit Office criticizes. Is one satisfied with it? Does Jessica Stegrud think it meets the requirements that the Swedish National Audit Office sets in the criticism they have presented against previous governments?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker and Rickard Nordin! You all know that as a former investment controller, I love impact assessments. One certainly cannot have too many.

It is, however, quite clear that we have drawn conclusions from the difficult consequences we are now facing due to past energy policy, in which Centerpartiet, among others, was involved. Those conclusions are very clear regarding what we must do to strengthen the electricity system again and obtain a well-functioning and competitive electricity system. In that respect, the consequence analyses are very clear. The effects we suffer from even today.

I listened to the press conference that the Center Party and the Social Democrats called today. It was interesting. They gathered the press corps to put forward the proposal or the demand - whatever it should be called - that the sitting government should provide an interim goal. They said nothing about how it should be done - how it should be possible to produce what is potentially requested - and did not even provide a figure. I wonder what they have actually intended. It feels very strange.

We would not have been in this situation if previous government parties had followed the Swedish National Audit Office's recommendations. That they did not do so is the reason why we are in this situation today. To demand amounts of impact assessments from me when we are sitting with the effects is, therefore, a bit strange.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! The Member started his contribution by speaking about irresponsibility, poor consequence analyses, and power-political agreements. Then I could not help but think: But what is it that the government base has done in, for example, the energy policy proposition? I assume that it is an agreement within that bloc. I guess that they have cooperated on it and then agreed that they dare to present it to the Riksdag.

I am also considering this issue regarding how, in the energy policy direction proposition, for example, one does not want to present any sub-target until 2030. The energy efficiency target has been removed. That is arguably a quite important target if we are to be able to have enough energy. What will be the consequence of that?

Just as Member Rickard Nordin pointed out earlier, there are no impact assessments in the direction proposal. But Member Stegrud stands here and complains that the Swedish National Audit Office has said that we did not conduct any impact assessments. You have also not conducted any impact assessments in the energy policy agreement, Jessica Stegrud.

What will this mean for the long-term conditions for, for example, the industry and for that part for electricity prices in general?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker and members! It is interesting nonetheless. Here we have a long account. The National Audit Office has audited the previous government's, that is to say the Social Democrats', policy, and the criticism is massive. But it seems that nothing has been taken to heart from it. Instead, one stands here and demands impact assessments from the coalition partners. Read the National Audit Office's report and come back! It is astonishing, Madam Speaker.

When it comes to this home-made, late-breaking invention that we must set a sharp sub-goal for 2030, we will have reviews throughout the entire period until the final goal. Now we focus on getting the balance of effects and power in order. It is, once again, the worst in the entire EU and prevents companies from establishing themselves and from expanding. It is about facing reality now.

Madam Speaker! The member had one more question, but I do not remember what it was.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! If Member Jessica Stegrud is so terribly upset about the National Audit Office's report, where it is pointed out that we did not conduct any consequence analyses of the decisions made here in the Riksdag – both energy agreements and other decisions that many parties in this chamber stood behind – she should ensure that the political bases and bills that the current government, in cooperation with the Sweden Democrats, produce contain very good consequence analyses, so that one actually knows what one is doing and what consequences it will have. It is very strange that she stands here and complains about this if it is so terribly upsetting. It is very strange.

Then the member says that we have the worst power balance in the EU. That is not true. Jessica Stegrud knows that too.

But, as I said: The sitting government and the government base, the Sverigedemokraterna, should have taken to heart the Riksrevisionen's report if they now think that what has happened over the last 20 years is so upsetting.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! Yes, I actually think it is a remarkable mockery of an important report which demonstrates how we have been able to end up in the situation we are in today. Households and companies suffer from the skyrocketing and volatile prices and from the power situation that we have in southern and central Sweden.

The parties in the previous government have not laid the foundation for the large expansion and the increased power and electricity needs that we see in our elongated country. I think it is incredibly bold to stand here and mock instead of taking the criticism to heart and presenting proposals that can lead the country forward.

At the press conference, one could read between the lines that it is wind power that is to be prioritized, despite the fact that we are in a situation where we generate a huge amount of electricity when it blows, while at the same time having a power deficit when it does not blow. Despite the fact that large-scale wind power in itself does not favor the total of prices and profitability in the electricity system, it is wind power that is wanted, at any cost. This is wanted despite the fact that report after report arrives regarding unprofitability, Chinese majority ownership, security risks, and so on, and despite the fact that everyone from the fishing industry to defense opposes the rapid large-scale expansion, which will not benefit the electricity system as a whole.

One wants to pursue the large wind projects' affairs instead of, as we Sverigedemokrater and the current government, looking at the entire electricity system and every individual electricity customer. It is them we work for and not the large projects.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating Elmarknadsfrågor, the Committee on Industry's report number 9. I stand behind all our reservations but move for approval of reservation 15.

This is a very extensive report which, among other things, deals with the government's communication regarding the National Audit Office's report on the state's measures for the development of the electricity system, but also a number of motions.

Madam Speaker! The National Audit Office's report is, as usual, a look back and a look at what is not working. What we can read in the government's response is that the government partly agrees, but also that the National Audit Office assesses that the impact assessment has been sufficient regarding several perspectives.

It is interesting that the government considers that long-term stable conditions for energy policy should be pursued. But that they should be pursued is apparently not the same as ensuring that they actually become a reality.

In the energy policy direction proposal, the government did not attempt to establish long-term conditions, and this we Social Democrats regret. We could have reached an agreement, which we wanted. Then there would have been stability and long-term perspective in the energy policy.

The government considers, in line with the National Audit Office, that the electricity market should be characterized by as high a degree of competition neutrality as possible and that the government has a responsibility to monitor the market's functioning if competition is affected in a decisive way by various policy instruments. I then wonder: Does this apply to all policy instruments, for example, fast-tracks for nuclear power in the environmental permit process, which can and should be introduced according to the government? I think we would need fast-tracks for all environmental permit processes regarding energy production and grid expansion.

Even in the Tidö Agreement, the design of the electricity market is mentioned, and even there we can read that all types of power shall have equivalent rules of the game. One then wonders why the credit guarantees only apply to nuclear power and not to all types of power.

Madam Speaker! The importance of low and stable electricity prices for Sweden's households and companies cannot be overemphasized. There must also be enough electricity, when and where it is needed. Therefore, all fossil-free energy production is needed, regardless of the type of production. If we do not succeed with that, investments and tens of thousands of jobs in the green transition will end up somewhere else in the world. The competition is, after all, fierce.

Madam Speaker! As I have previously mentioned in my speech, the permit processes are an important part of the expansion of electricity production and the expansion of the grid. Here, the Social Democratic government commissioned investigations that submitted proposals that are now ready, and now the bill A clearer process for permit assessment for electricity grids has finally been submitted. It is good, but it is not enough. More was needed, and there are several proposals that one chooses not to proceed with.

New investigations and assignments have also been appointed based on the proposals from the Climate Justice Investigation. Now we are just waiting for the proposals from the Environmental Assessment Investigation, where the government appointed an additional investigation.

We Social Democrats have submitted a number of proposals to speed up the permit process, and here I would like to say: Pull yourselves together, the government, and turn the proposals that are already on the table into reality! It has almost been two years, and those years should have made a difference. Action was needed.

Madam Speaker! To manage the transition, we need all hands on deck. We Social Democrats and the Centre Party want the government to return with a clear goal for 2030 and a quantifiable efficiency goal. We need more electricity production before nuclear power is in place.

But the government does not want time-limited goals but has proposed checkpoints along the way in the years 2030, 2035, 2040 and 2045 - what a checkpoint now entails.

If we do not achieve production in the near term, we will probably not need the more than 300 terawatt-hours in 2045, because then the investments will end up somewhere else.

We need more onshore wind power in the short term. Here, it is important to get the compensations to municipalities and neighbors in place. But it is also important that the municipalities say yes or no early in the process. The municipal veto is important to retain.

We also need to continue with energy efficiency measures. We need to build more solar power and district heating and heating. It is about flexibility, storage, and power increases in existing facilities such as hydropower and nuclear power.

Then we have the offshore wind power. The current SD government interrupted the work on connecting larger offshore wind farms directly to the main grid. That would have made a big difference for the willingness to invest. This is what we did with nuclear power and hydropower, and it would be reasonable considering that the government wants competition neutrality between the types of power. But it seems to be a lip service.

This would have contributed to the electricity system with high security of supply, low environmental impact and a significantly increased electricity production, especially in southern Sweden, where I am when I am not here. We need to join forces so that we do not lose the investments and tens of thousands of jobs that are planned in Sweden.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the speech! In light of what we have heard requested and what I also heard about at the press conference today, I become curious. What do the Social Democrats and the Centre Party consider to be a reasonable goal for 2030? Where and in what way shall the goal be realized?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! We have had a goal that we should have 60 terawatt-hours by 2030, and that is where we need to end up somewhere. That can be seen if one reads the documents that the authorities have presented. In the short perspective, regarding producing more, it is about, among other things, what I mentioned in my speech. We need to increase the capacity in the types of power that already exist and get more out of them. But it is also about other energy efficiencies. It is about combined heat and power, district heating, storage and so on so that we can achieve this.

The question was about the goal and how we are to realize it. In the short term, it is land-based wind power that is the solution and which can be built fastest. That is actually the reality.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! Several of the measures that the member mentions, for example increasing the capacity within combined heat and power, utilizing it, and having capacity increases in existing plants and in different types of power, are already on the agenda. This is therefore not to introduce anything new.

There was also talk about offshore wind. The mantra is constantly that it is cheap, efficient, and so on. Now we have, for example, seen the procurement that recently took place in Norway. There, the offshore wind power was procured at 115 kronor per kilowatt-hour. That is not what I would call cheap, Madam Speaker.

We see many problems specifically with wind power, and they are problems that are never addressed. According to primarily the Social Democrats, the way should be cleared for wind power everywhere without regard for the environment, nature, performance and, above all – that is the running point here – what it actually does or does not do for the electricity system, so to speak.

It is established that it does not blow when it does not blow. Then something else must compensate and balance the electricity system. The member mentioned himself that we need to have electricity. It must be produced when and where it is needed. That is precisely what the power balance is about. It is therefore a bit strange to reason as if wind power is salvific. I would very much like to know what type of effect, balance, and reserve power is envisioned in terms of this expansion of wind power, especially in northern Sweden.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! The member asked how we would reach the goal in the short term. I therefore focused my answer on what we need to do in the short term. In the short term, it is not about offshore wind power, because we will not have time to get that ready by 2030. I believe we are all aware of that.

Then there are ways to store what comes from wind power. It is about batteries, hydrogen storage and other things. I rambled on about combined heat and power and other things that have already been started, but that does not mean it is finished or that it is done. It is an ongoing work. One will be able to get much more out of these types of power if one works in the direction that we have already started.

This is my answer to that question.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I will make it very simple for Member Haider. I have two simple questions.

Will the Social Democrats pursue the issue of folkhemsel, which the Social Democrats are currently pursuing creditably in opposition, if there is a change of government and a broad agreement on energy policy is expected?

The second question concerns credit guarantees. Will the Social Democrats still support credit guarantees for nuclear power if it is seen that an energy system is being fixed, if the power balance is maintained, and if it is seen that it is heading in the right direction?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats' starting point regarding credit guarantees is that they shall apply to all types of power. I find it difficult to stand here today and say that they would not apply to nuclear power in the future. But we believe that if we are to have credit guarantees, they shall apply to all types of power. That is our starting point.

Then there was the question of pursuing the issue of the folkhemmet. Yes, I think it is an interesting question to pursue even forward in time, but at the same time we do not know where we will be in four years. I therefore think it is difficult to answer yes to that question over a very long term.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I shall continue on the simple track with simple questions.

Today, many municipalities are running into obstacles regarding land-based wind power because there is no compensation. There are many proposals on the table from several parties on how this can be solved – with property tax or with a production-based compensation to the municipalities. Will the Social Democrats push so that there will be a compensation to the municipalities that grant the immediate environment, so that it becomes a land-based production? Will you push for this and ensure that a compensation comes so that the Swedish people and these municipalities know that something will happen?

Can people trust that there will be reliable prices, as the Social Democrats have calculated it would be with the folkhemsel? Can one trust that there will be stable prices? I understand that the member says it is difficult to say where we will be in three years. But can those out there trust that one will work to ensure there are reliable and stable prices, as is shown when it comes to folkhemsel?

I know that the dysfunctional market that exists today will not lead to the stable prices that households demand.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! To the first question, I answer yes, and that is sufficient. Yes, we will push for that municipalities, neighbors and so on shall be able to receive compensation so that it becomes easier to establish wind power. We will definitely push for that.

We will, of course, push to ensure that we get reliable prices in the longer term in Sweden, because that is important. If we do not do that and if we do not get low prices, the investments that are planned will not end up here in Sweden. They will not, if one does not believe in our system.

Still, the companies are doing it, because they continue to invest. So the answer is yes to both questions.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna af Sillén (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal for a decision.

With that said, I want to say a few words about the electricity market and the questions related to it. Let me begin with a brief comment from the National Audit Office's review of the previous Social Democratic government's energy policy: In the government's assessment, the National Audit Office has found that the government has conducted insufficient impact analyses before making decisions on measures that have had an impact on the electricity system. This concerns decisions on the power tax, the electricity certificate system, as well as energy and carbon taxes for combined heat and power within the EU. The impact analyses are insufficient, it is stated.

Madam Speaker! It is wise to accept scrutiny and criticism. Finding the right way forward for a new government often requires a look in the rearview mirror, but many Swedes had noticed that the Social Democrats' policy was detached from reality long before the National Audit Office's report. Likewise, authorities had warned of the consequences well in advance, and we Moderates have consistently voted no to red-green system-threatening policy.

In the last election, the voters also put their foot down and demanded a leadership that actually takes responsibility for the energy supply, and now we stand here and note that the political work of rebuilding a stable, secure energy system that produces electricity at a reasonable price is in full swing.

Bit by bit, a completely necessary transition is now taking place. The parties in the Tidösamarbetet are jointly carrying out the largest restructuring of Swedish energy policy since the deregulation in the 90s. The energy policy direction proposition takes us into an era that we have not seen in decades in Sweden. For a long time, instead, it has been political ideas, disconnected from reality, that have dictated the design of the power system.

Now we leave that. Physics and function must replace wishful thinking and fantasies when we build an electricity system that companies and households throughout the country can feel secure with.

The hallmark of this government's energy policy is that it takes a holistic approach to the electricity and energy issue. The energy bill is therefore not the only thing the government has worked on; it has also presented proposals to streamline the expansion of the electricity grid, something that the Swedish National Audit Office recommended. It has abolished the Social Democrats' and the Green Party's penalty tax on combined heat and power, and last week a major step was taken for Swedish energy preparedness in the event of a crisis.

To this, a number of assignments and investigations are ongoing at agencies and within the Government Offices to further strengthen the socially important energy infrastructure. We are reviewing the structure of all agencies involved in the power system, we are investigating a new regulatory framework for offshore wind power to make it more efficient and more legally secure, and we are also reviewing the nuclear power regulatory framework and financial risk-sharing.

But it is not enough to only look at regulations and requirements for the technology, we must also look at the entire electricity market - a market that has for a long time drifted freely from how the power system functions in reality.

The National Audit Office has pointed out that the compensation for system services should be reviewed, and Svenska kraftnät recommends that a full-scale capacity market that takes into account both electricity production and system services be investigated. For this very reason, the government has appointed an inquiry to review this as well.

For every day that passes, Madam Speaker, the government gets a little more order in Sweden. During the previous parliamentary term, the opposition pushed the Social Democratic government ahead of it. Now, the Moderate-led government is leading a massive transformation of the entire Swedish energy policy to build a strong and well-functioning power system. We do this in dialogue with both industry and business as well as academia, and in broad conversations with all parties in the Riksdag.

Madam Speaker! The Moderates are working for a strong and versatile energy system with 100 percent fossil-free energy, a system that functions as a whole where all types of power are expected to contribute to stability and reliable electricity at reasonable prices.

It is physics and function instead of fantasies. Electricity must be available where it is needed when it is needed. With access to clean, affordable energy delivered around the clock, we strengthen Swedish growth and competitiveness. Thus, we create good conditions for Swedish companies that can grow and create prosperity throughout the country. So, Madam Speaker, together we build a safer, cleaner, and wealthier Sweden.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Anna af Sillén! It is nice to have you here in the debate!

I believe the member said something along the lines that it was the largest reorganization of energy policy in modern times. I didn't quite catch the last part, but it was something in that style. She also highlighted the lack of impact assessments.

We can begin by stating that even the Moderaterna were involved in a good deal of the proposals that came, for example, regarding the electricity certificate system, so there should also be some self-criticism from the Moderaterna. If not, one becomes curious about what lessons have been drawn, not just from the Riksrevisionen's report but above all from the criticism that Riksrevisionen has had regarding precisely consequence analyses.

My question is therefore quite similar to the one I asked Jessica Stegrud earlier. The delivery security goal is a rather significant matter that has also been commented on in a number of referral responses. In the direction proposal that the government has submitted, does the member think the impact assessments regarding the delivery security goal are clear regarding, for example, different alternatives, what specifications can be made, and which indicators, target levels, and other things could be relevant?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna af Sillén (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Nordin, for the questions and the welcome!

I also welcome both the Centre Party's and the Social Democrats' focus on the importance of taking the National Audit Office's criticism to heart, even though it is interesting that they dodge how it is directed at their own political efforts and instead focus on what the current government is doing.

But then it is also certainly reassuring to hear, Madam Speaker, that the government has taken the Swedish National Audit Office's report most seriously. Impact analyses regarding how a reliable energy system in Sweden needs to function are also the basis for the energy bill that the government and the Tidö parties are now presenting. There, they are therefore taking responsibility for the whole, so that the entire energy system functions and so that all of Sweden can rely on having electricity when and where it is needed and at a reasonable price.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting that Anna af Sillén and the Moderaterna say that lessons have been learned and that they consider this impact assessment to be sufficient. It is, in fact, considerably shorter than the analyses that the member herself mentioned, for example, in the energy policy direction bill 2016. And if one looks at the security of supply goals, which is a rather big matter that can have fairly large consequences depending on how the whole thing is designed, there are no indicators, no target levels, no price pictures, no scenario analyses, and no calculations in the impact assessment.

Even Svenska kraftnät, which is frequently referred to and which is to be given the assignment of handling the security of supply goal, says that there is nothing to take a position on, because there is nothing other than speaking points in the bill. It is therefore not possible to make any assessments based on either the bill or the impact assessments.

If one thought previous impact assessments were problematic, this is at best vague and general and at worst pure nonsense. There is nothing to hold onto, there is nothing that anyone can invest in and nothing to take a stand on.

How can one, then, think that they have learned from the Riksrevisionen's reports when there is nothing concrete to take a stand on? I would very much like to have an answer to that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna af Sillén (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Rickard Nordin, who is happy to talk about short proposals. It might perhaps surprise me somewhat, for the record for short proposals was reasonably broken this morning when the broad political center—well, it may not be so broad, but still—gathered for a press conference to give an announcement. An announcement was given, Madam Speaker; it was not a proposal but an announcement, and the announcement was that they say no.

One says no to the security of supply goals and no to those parts in the energy bill that the government is now presenting which recreate the energy system, the reliability and the robustness that the red-green government – with the Center Party's good memory – contributed to dismantling. Dismantling a well-functioning system goes relatively quickly, Madam Speaker, but building it up takes longer.

We are in a situation where Sweden has had an electricity crisis. Now, there has been a consensus around an energy proposal that seriously takes a holistic approach and that takes responsibility for ensuring this will work when it finally reaches both Swedish companies and Swedish households. In that situation, I can understand that the opposition's role is to oppose—I can understand that it is the opposition's role in all situations, Madam Speaker—but to achieve a certain level of credibility, one should reasonably also be able to put a proposal of their own on the table. That is not what the Centerpartiet is doing, and that is not what the Socialdemokraterna are doing.

I think it is unfortunate, because it would be good for Sweden to have greater constructiveness from the red-green side as well in energy issues.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the speech from Anna af Sillén.

I was thinking that we were in Kiruna. I see a colleague from your party here who was on the trip, Anna af Sillén, and that pleases me. We received a good presentation from LKAB at the Arctic Conference, as it is called, and they were very clear about what they see ahead. They see a large expansion of wind power with cheap electricity and volatile prices, which makes their case stronger.

Another thing is when one listens to the government base and the presentations from there. I will not precede the upcoming energy bill and everything addressed in it, such as energy security goals and such things, but in his speech, the member mentioned an electricity system with reasonable prices. I am, so to speak, very interested in and curious about what constitutes reasonable prices for the Moderaterna.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna af Sillén (M)

Madam Speaker! I would also have liked to participate in the trip to Kiruna and hope that I will have the opportunity to do so at another time. The transition of Swedish industry is important, and I believe nonetheless that both Member Lahti and I - despite being on different parts of the political scale - are enthusiastic about the conditions for industry and the acceleration of the transition.

What constitutes reasonable electricity prices is a question I judge to be quite difficult to answer in exact figures, but what the industry demands is stability and long-term perspective. A prerequisite for that is an energy system that can deliver electricity every hour of the day. It must deliver when it is needed and where it is needed, i.e., not only in northern Sweden but also in southern Sweden, where we also have industry and companies that want to develop. When we achieve that system, we also get an opportunity to create more stable prices, and I understand that the industry demands that. We intend to deliver that with the energy proposition - in the long run.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! What puzzles me and surely many others is that which is conspicuously absent in the upcoming bill.

There is nothing indicating that there is any kind of plan for how much the nuclear power will cost. You are providing very large credit guarantees in the event that someone is willing to invest, but there is nothing indicating how much it is allowed to cost and who is going to foot the bill. There is nothing indicating that.

If it turns out that new production of electricity, regardless of where it comes from, lands at 1 krona per kilowatt-hour, the calculations for the industry will not hold. Is it the taxpayers who are to foot the bill then? Or should the cost be distributed among the consumers? The consumers and the industry are worried today. As I said, LKAB was very clear in its message in its presentation in Kiruna: They are not saying no to nuclear power until 2045, but they need answers regarding 2030 and 2035. What will be in place then, and what will the electricity cost?

All those parts are missing, however, in the upcoming bill. Now I am getting slightly ahead of events; we will deal with the bill when it arrives. But I ask again: Reasonable prices for whom? Is it the taxpayers, or is it that we are to have competitive prices so that we do not compete our heavy industries out of the country?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna af Sillén (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Lahti for the question. I would also like to hear the Left Party's answer to the question.

We have a Left Party party leader who has spoken about Sweden prices, which is a rhetoric that we Moderates do not fully understand. It is based on the idea of Sweden as an isolated island, which we naturally are not. I also question the Left Party's thoughts on where the power should be produced. There has been very much focus on northern Sweden and an increased transmission capacity to southern Sweden, but we must, therefore, have power production in southern Sweden as well.

We must also have a well-functioning, predictable power supply. The base load must work. The only way to ensure that we manage the taxpayers' money well in the future—those are the only funds we have to manage, that is, the taxpayers'—is to ensure that we have a reliable and secure energy system. Only then can we, in the long run, achieve reasonable electricity prices and security for both the transition of small businesses and industry as well as the private finances of households.

A predictable, safe and secure power is the way forward. The government is looking at the financing of nuclear power and the risk-sharing surrounding it, but it is clear that predictable power must increase. There are costs associated with that, but it would mean an even greater cost to return to what was the previous government's policy - an uncertain and ultimately unreliable energy system.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! Member Sillén pointed out insufficient consequence analyses in his contribution, just as Member Rickard Nordin touched upon in his exchange of remarks. Actually, I have the same question as I asked Jessica Stegrud. One should have concluded that when presenting new propositions, one should have sufficient consequence analyses of the proposals being put forward, but it is actually not in the proposition.

What I can also state is that it is quite dangerous that one does not want any short-term goal for how much electricity we need to produce or how much energy we need in production. In principle, the only thing the sitting government and the government base talk about is nuclear power. Nuclear power will not be in place by 2030. It might not be in place by 2035 either, but only by 2040. Which types of power are we going to produce until nuclear power is in place? That is my question. Nothing else actually matters, because if we do not produce power in the short term, we will not have any industry - and then we will lose tens of thousands of jobs. So that is my question to the member.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna af Sillén (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Haider for the question.

The same questions tend to yield the same answers. I must apologize if I repeat myself.

Rarely, I would say, have so many who are affected by an audit or a report been so interested in others taking part of it. I find it a bit fascinating.

The Tidö parties have read the National Audit Office's report. Now, consequence analyses, physics, function and facts form the basis for how we now want to recreate the energy system that member Haider's government dismantled.

We stand where we stand today for a reason. It is always welcome that political parties want to increase the pace of important work, but this government has had to start by sorting out a situation that Member Haider's party is responsible for. Against that background, it might be appropriate with an insight into how the member's party has handled – or not handled – consequence analyses.

This government has done it. We are presenting an energy proposal that will recreate an energy system that has a security of supply goal and a predictability goal. This system has the parts that make one see the system as a whole.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! Member Anna af Sillén unfortunately does not answer my questions about what should be done in the short term. It is actually that – if one is only to focus on nuclear power – that is the Achilles' heel in this. Nuclear power will not be in place, and the Tidö parties know that. One must also work with other types of power to get more energy in place in the short term, and it is this that we believe is lacking.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna af Sillén (M)

Madam Speaker! The short-term is the great challenge; I believe we need to be honest enough to state that everyone realizes this. Nor could the Social Democrats, at their press conference today, deliver an answer to this. They could not answer how the goal should be formulated or how it should be achieved. The only message from the Social Democrats today was that they say no to what the government is presenting. One can do that, but if one does not have an answer or proposal oneself, perhaps that is where one should begin.

This government welcomes all types of power, but says that all types of power must contribute to stability, reliability, and reasonable prices. That was not the case previously, and therefore we got an energy system that eventually did not hang together and could not deliver electricity anywhere and at any time at reasonable prices.

You Social Democrats abolished nuclear power, taxed district heating, and were on track to dismantle hydropower. This is a trend that the Moderate-led government is now backing away from. We will land in a much better place; Member Haider can feel secure about that. This government takes responsibility for functionality in the energy system.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Well then, shall we say in Meänkeli. The report being debated here concerns electricity market issues. In this report, the committee deals with the government's communication regarding the Swedish National Audit Office's report on the state's measures for the development of the electricity system. I begin by moving for approval of the Left Party's reservation 1 in the report. It means that we in the Left Party want the communication to be added to the records and it also contains our justification.

The Swedish National Audit Office has examined whether the state actors have prepared and implemented measures with an impact on the electricity system so that the three energy policy pillars can be reconciled in an effective manner. The audit covers those parts of the energy sector that have an impact on the electricity system. It covers the period 2000-2022 and focuses on the last ten years. It is, of course, understandable to question why one has landed there.

The National Audit Office concludes that the government needs to become better at preparing and implementing measures with an impact on the electricity system, and that sounds reasonable. The National Audit Office also argues that the government and Svenska kraftnät need to become better at managing the consequences of decisions with an impact on the electricity system. The National Audit Office thus considers that the state actors have neither prepared nor implemented measures with an impact on the electricity system in a way that effectively unites the fundamental pillars of energy policy.

I can state that the government welcomes the audit. It is seen as a valuable contribution to the government's ongoing work to develop energy policy and the government agrees in principle with the Swedish National Audit Office's assessments. Those who read the upcoming bill may perhaps become a little more reflective – something in the criticism has been missed.

I want to emphasize that I and Vänsterpartiet were from the beginning opposed to the deregulation of the electricity market that was rushed through for ideological reasons in the mid-1990s. Through this deregulation, public Sweden has unfortunately lost control over a very important social function. I also want to highlight that the bottleneck effects prevailing between price area 2 and 3 have been known by Svenska kraftnät for decades, but the state-owned enterprise has nevertheless not taken sufficient measures to remedy these problems.

Another problem is that the deregulated electricity market does not provide the Swedish electricity system with the stability and predictability that is so important for both producers and consumers of electricity. The market's rules of play allow, for example, wind power owners to sell their production abroad over several decades. This undermines the electricity system's reliability and predictability, not to mention how the citizens who see these wind farms view the whole thing.

I am strongly critical that the government has not done enough to protect Swedish electricity customers from hideous price peaks. Households and companies are being crushed by the high electricity prices, while Sweden is the largest exporter of electricity in all of Europe. In my opinion, a new price model is therefore needed that restores electricity prices to more normal levels.

I advocate for what is called Sweden prices, which was requested in a previous exchange of remarks. Sweden prices means separate prices for, on the one hand, the electricity consumed in Sweden and, on the other hand, the electricity that is exported. It is not more difficult than that. Through this, Swedish electricity prices are stabilized without affecting Sweden's opportunities to export fossil-free electricity to the continent. We do not become an island because of it.

Madam Speaker! There is much to say about the electricity market and how it is regulated and functions - or rather, how it does not function. You should only know how many reactions I receive from citizens who are struggling when they see how grid owners and electricity producers raise their fees. The grid owners have increased the fixed fees by 70 percent since the new year. Is that reasonable?

I marvel at how we in the opposition have failed to seek all possible synergies within the energy sector. There, we in the opposition have failed.

We are receiving all the signals regarding what applies for compensations to municipalities when they, for example, release the immediate environment for wind power. There is a lack of incentives.

The enormous transfer of capital that has occurred from Swedish companies and consumers to the electricity producers, the grid owners, and the state is outrageous - and all with the government's silent approval. I am just waiting for the Swedish people to say that enough is enough.

As I mentioned in an exchange of remarks, when we debate the bill on the long-term competitiveness of energy policy in a while, I will provide more detailed examples of how the government jeopardizes Swedish competitiveness.

I am honestly very surprised at how a government that many think stands on the side of industry and small business owners sabotages Swedish competitiveness just to appease nuclear power - regardless of what I think about it. Ultimately, it is about not wanting a scenario where the electricity system is capable of balancing power with renewable production, storage, new technology, smart grids and so on, because if this were to work by 2035, the plans for new nuclear power would be undermined and the investors would withdraw. But if the government does not care about how expensive it will become for the taxpayers or that competitiveness is undermined, yes, then one is still dancing to SD's tune.

Madam Speaker! This I must have said. It is only from one party that I have heard a Member of Parliament say that LKAB will never manufacture iron sponge with the help of hydrogen.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

The only thing I hear is no, no, no. The member points out, admittedly, the problems with volatile prices and price increases that damage competitiveness and companies. There is also talk about impact assessments. But the fact is that we are sitting with the consequences of previous policy, and that policy was one that Vänsterpartiet was a part of. Is there any self-reflection?

The Leader of the House speaks against nuclear power. It is supposed to remain in the energy mix somewhere, but the Left Party places great hope in, for example, hydrogen technology. But it is incredibly inefficient, difficult to handle in an environmentally friendly way, very reactive, and has not yet been tested on a large scale. I want to hear a bit more about how the Left Party wants to see the electricity market develop in the future, and by that, I do not mean price caps but production capacity and how it is distributed in Sweden.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Jessica Stegrud for the questions.

Of course, there is self-criticism, including regarding the tax on combined heat and power plants and the consequences of that. I take that criticism to heart.

But the Sweden Democrats and Jessica Stegrud probably also need to be self-critical eventually. Vänsterpartiet wants to review the electricity system as a whole, but what does the industry say? There was a representative from the Sweden Democrats there in Kiruna, and I hope he conveyed what LKAB said. The message was clear. They want reliability so that they know there is as much energy as they need when they make their investments. They talked about renewables, wind power, and that which delivers cheap electricity. It was clear and without question marks.

One should have the image in mind that we have investors who are standing in line today, but that there are municipalities that say no to offshore wind power from wind turbines that stand so far out at sea that they are hardly visible. Right-wing municipalities say no, but one does not dare to step on their toes and say that this is not reasonable.

Regarding Stegrud's speech, there is no doubt about Stegrud's and the Sverigedemokraternas view on wind power. You do not want it. You only bring up the disadvantages of wind power, and that is a problem.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! When the member speaks about industry, it is usually about a few really large industrial companies in the north. But Sweden is bigger than that, and there are a multitude of small and medium-sized companies and industries in southern and central Sweden that also need to be heard and who experience the consequences of the previously conducted policy, namely what I nag about all the time: an electricity surplus interspersed with a power shortage. It is not a sign of a market and an electricity system in balance, and as has been pointed out previously here, it takes time to build up a well-functioning and stable electricity system again. I therefore think that it becomes a bit tight.

Regarding the enthusiasm for nuclear power, I see it as my task as a politician to ensure the entire electricity system. The fact is that we need a stable base load. When it doesn't blow, it doesn't blow, and then something else must step in and cover. Filling the system with a lot of weather-dependent types of energy can happen quickly, but there is a lot of other things to take into account. I have no preference for any type of power per se, but I and Sverigedemokraterna look at the entire system. The point is that it must work for everyone in our country.

Judging by the result of the wind power establishments, the incentives have been wrong. When it blows a lot, there is an electricity surplus, and prices are dumped. Many wind power companies are now running at a loss and generate neither profit nor dividends. It is a warning signal. The offshore wind power is sold at very high prices in Norway, and the same signal comes from the United Kingdom. One must look at the whole and the profitability.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to wind farms that are running at a loss, I hope the member has looked into why that is the case. Many have been sold very cheaply on long-term contracts, and when the Ukraine crisis came, prices rose. It is no mystery. But wind farms are still the cheapest type of production that exists. I have met owners who operate in the same areas and heard how they view the Chinese ownership, and I hope that it will be resolved. Some have negotiated new contracts, and they are managing.

The chairman says that there are a few companies in northern Sweden, but on the Kiruna-Narvik stretch, the heaviest load in Sweden travels. The industries up there will perform great feats when they remove their emissions, but emissions are not something that affects any parties in Sweden in the short term. Of course, southern Sweden must also have electricity when it is needed, but then bourgeois municipalities cannot be allowed to say no to every wind farm. It is offshore wind farms that stand a mile out at sea and are hardly visible, but they say no.

I am convinced that in five to ten years we will have a balance of power with renewables, if one lets it happen. But if one puts spokes in the wheels, it will obviously become more difficult.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of the Committee on Industry's proposal in the report regarding electricity market issues.

Has any of us experienced a power outage? Yes, it is clear that we all have. Perhaps someone has experienced it over a longer period of a few days, but most people's experience is likely limited to sitting with a few candles, perhaps reading a book with real pages or playing a game of solitaire or two for an hour or two, and then the light, internet, dishwasher, and microwave are back in service. The civilized life as we know it returns again, and everything can return to normal.

We must, however, realize that this normal will not happen by itself and does not work by itself. It is the result of incredibly important work carried out by many people over a very long time. There has been a plan that has guided this successful work.

The stability, security of supply, and affordability of Swedish electricity production have served our country extremely well for many years. But in recent years, something has happened with our electricity system. We have had a price development that can almost be compared to a roller coaster that has lost all its brakes. We have power limitations that cause investments to be delayed or even omitted.

We have a mountain to climb when it comes to expanding electricity production with the aim of approximately doubling today's level, this in order to make it possible to, through a large-scale electrification of industry and vehicle fleets, create a bridge that helps our country have a long-term sustainable development with a good welfare. Our government has to handle a large debt that has been built up by several years of unfortunate government decisions regarding our electricity system.

Madam Speaker! During the year, the Riksdag has received a communication from the Government regarding the National Audit Office's report on the state's measures for the development of the electricity system, and this is also being handled in our committee today. The communication is a response to the National Audit Office's audit report State's measures for the development of the electricity system - reactive and insufficiently substantiated. It is a rather extensive National Audit Office report, but also a report well worth reading.

To be honest, it is not every document that fires up all my cylinders. But sometimes it happens that I get something in my hands that stands out in a completely special way and gets my pulse going. This report is such an example. In bone-dry, concise prose, the Swedish National Audit Office reviews a number of decisions within the energy sector that have in common that they have influenced the electricity system in different ways. Consistently, this influence has been of a negative nature. It is rare to see an agency present such a stinging reckoning of past policy as the Swedish National Audit Office does in just this audit report.

The review covers the years 2000-2022, and it is several different governments that have had the ultimate responsibility during this time. It is therefore not only the experiences of the latest mandate period that form the basis for the National Audit Office's conclusions, even though it is during the recent years that we have seen a cumulative effect of many ill-considered decisions.

The focus of the report is the last ten years. Almost all responsibility for the poorly managed energy policy therefore falls heavily on the Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet.

Madam Speaker! It is with satisfaction that I see that this government, with Minister for Energy Ebba Busch at the helm, in its response clearly and constructively accepts the Swedish National Audit Office's recommendations and explains point by point how it intends to proceed in its work. Some have already been started while other measures remain but are planned in a confidence-inspiring manner.

Restoring the security of supply, stability, and affordability in the Swedish electricity system is not a sprint but a marathon. We are not there yet, but we are out of the starting blocks, we have left the stadium, and we know the way forward. With Kristdemokraterna in Rosenbad, the Swedish people can rest assured that we will not give up until we have reached the finish line: We shall have the world's best fossil-free electricity system.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Camilla Brodin and I just said here outside the chamber that we can chill with the replies, but it is difficult sometimes!

There is indeed a fair amount of criticism in the National Audit Office's report, which Camilla Brodin presents in a rather sour manner. But one must remember that as recently as 2019, the Kristdemokraterna were involved in virtually all energy policy within this review's time period: the energy policy based on the alliance government's energy agreement, which was subsequently expanded into the energy agreement. There is a criticism that it was fixed, that we did not negotiate it.

I was there at that time, though in a different role than today. I was, therefore, involved when the Christian Democrats and the Moderates wanted to leave the energy agreement because there was criticism. Negotiations were then conducted, and we were prepared to renegotiate many points in order to continue to have a broad stability to meet the criticism that existed. It is, therefore, quite remarkable that one is so totally irresponsible regarding one's own part in that criticism.

Not only that, but when one then presents a proposition for a long-term energy policy, it does not only have a deficient impact assessment, it is totally missing. What exists is called an impact description, and it fits on one A4 sheet per part in the incredibly important future energy policy.

My question is: Have the Christian Democrats not drawn any lessons whatsoever from the criticism that they are now so eagerly casting towards the Green Party and the Social Democrats?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Lakso for the questions. I am pleased that I get the opportunity to elaborate on this, because I am incredibly proud of the conducted energy policy and the reorganization of the energy policy that this government is now undertaking.

We must remember that the energy agreement concluded in 2016 contained quite many different points, but other parties were not prepared to actually do anything until they had completed all of that. We had some seminar activity during an entire autumn so that everyone would have the same starting points, but we never made any progress.

Furthermore, we included the energy agreement specifically to save nuclear power, because the electricity tax was harmful. Impact analyses that the government received in part showed that if nuclear power is decommissioned, the power balance will still become much worse. But that was not listened to, and instead, the decommissioning of Ringhals 1 and 2 continued. They also decommissioned the project for Ringhals 5 and 6, which were then underway.

That one could not even see the impact assessment and what it would mean for Sweden's electricity system is not enough responsibility. Therefore, I am incredibly proud of what this government is doing right now.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! I note that Camilla Brodin is very proud, but no answer came as to whether any conclusions were drawn from the question regarding consequence analyses and no self-reflection on the small A4 called a consequence description. Correctly speaking, one cannot call it a consequence analysis. I can understand that, because with this government, energy policy will unfortunately fail again.

Previously, during many of the years when the Christian Democrats ruled with the Alliance, we were dependent on imports of German coal and Polish coal power. Then we had a red-green government. We expanded the electricity system significantly, and we brought in very many terawatt-hours. At the same time, we maintained, according to the World Energy Council, the world's best energy system. This is what you hear when you listen to independent reviewers and not to the government representatives' own fantasies.

That is how it looks, but the forecasts ahead look even gloomier. The government completely lacks tools to maintain a high expansion rate. According to the forecasts, the expansion rate is decreasing, and there are no further incentives to build out quickly.

The government's policy will once again lead to a shortage of power and an electricity deficit, perhaps as early as 2030, because there is no policy. Or is there something I have missed here, Camilla Brodin, that you want to tell today and that will make it so that it will not be as the forecasts say? That would make me happy.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Linus Lakso!

Lack of effectiveness, fantasies and so on - we are living with the consequences today. These are all consequences of the past policies that make it necessary for us now to equip the electricity system so that we can continue to be world-leading.

We have an electricity system that we should be very proud of, but it means that we must look at the laws of physics and not stand here and bicker about wind power or nuclear power. I myself have contributed to it quite strongly, but we will need all types of power in the future. This is what we are paving the way for right now.

We see the consequences. We live with them in the current situation. Now we must re-establish the entire security of supply, robustness, stability, and affordability in a serious way, which we have not seen the previously conducted energy policy take responsibility for. We see the consequences right now. For me, these are consequences that we must not continue to live with, but now we must build up. These are consequences that we will have to live with for quite a long time ahead. It is quick to demolish an electricity system, but it takes even longer to build up an electricity system.

When I stood in this chamber at the beginning of the previous parliamentary term, no other party wanted to acknowledge that we need more terawatt-hours to manage the industry's transition and so on. At that time, I was patted on the head a bit, but now I believe that all parties realize that we must double electricity production for the green transition to truly gain momentum.

Sweden must continue to be competitive, but for that we need a robust electricity system.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! We are having a bit of fun and joy in the Committee on Economic Affairs. It is also fun that other parties are looking at the Center Party's press conferences. If one had truly been interested in our proposals, which have been requested, one could have read up beforehand in, for example, the texts that we submitted to the government in connection with the type of glorified coffee break that was invited to.

It is stated there, for example, that Centerpartiet thinks we should plan for 100 terawatt-hours by 2030, that we should have an energy efficiency goal that also takes into account the potential that the Swedish Energy Agency has presented, i.e., 20-25 terawatt-hours in profitable efficiency by 2030, or for that part, a previously set goal of doubling energy production given the needs that the Swedish Energy Agency also points out. There are, therefore, plenty of proposals for those who are genuinely interested rather than just being rhetorical in the speaker's chair.

Here we are debating, above all, electricity market issues in general and the Swedish National Audit Office's report in particular. The Government and its governing party SD often say that the Swedish National Audit Office is criticizing previous governments' energy policies. This naturally includes their own governments and their own energy policy which, as has been said here previously, KD and M themselves have been involved in making decisions about.

What is interesting, however, is what the criticism put forward by the Swedish National Audit Office has consisted of. Let us look at the very first point, which reads as follows: "Ensure that before decisions with greater impact on the electricity system are made, there are always sufficient consequence analyses that take the entire electricity system into account. These analyses should also include proposals for appropriate management of any unwanted consequences."

This is something that the Tidögänget has taken a firm stand on, and if we read their own policy proposal with, for example, security of supply goals, we should therefore be able to expect a solid impact assessment with calculations, analyses, scenarios, and conclusions. But no, the analysis can at best be described as vague and general and at worst as pure gibberish without meaning. It is so vague that it is not even described as an analysis but as a description. It is not something that exists in particularly many proposals, where one instead talks about consequences or precisely impact assessments.

Let me quote from the two and a half pages of text in the bill, which the government describes as a major course change, which are rather grand words. It says there: "A strongly expanding electricity system may have consequences for the possibility of meeting other social and environmental goals. To manage this expansion, efficient planning and permitting processes are needed. Developed knowledge and planning bases can contribute to this."

First and foremost, this is not some consequence analysis, but it is a statement repeated three times. One then wonders which social and environmental goals the government means. Can consequences for environmental goals be avoided through efficient permit processes and developed knowledge bases? If so, how, and at what cost? We get no answers on this.

I take the next quote: "A delivery security goal can indirectly affect which capabilities are expanded." No – talk about stating the obvious! However, we are not told how, and there is nothing about the specifications that are expected to be decided upon and nothing about the indicators that the government has flagged – it is unclear what these contain. There is nothing there that can be grasped, that someone can invest from the outside or that the industry can make assessments of or form an opinion on.

It is simply not possible to take a position on proposals that are so poorly substantiated that they cannot be analyzed. They are like directly taken from a talking point. They create more uncertainty than clarity when the business community is crying out for long-term rules of the game and a short-term rapid expansion of the electricity system.

When it comes to the energy efficiency goal that the government in practice scraps by saying that they will review it without saying anything at all, the entire impact assessment of a rather large change sounds like this: "A goal for energy efficiency contributes to pointing out a political direction of will, justifying measures to make energy use more efficient and following up on the results of such measures." We can state that it is a goal, but now the government does not want to have any goal but to review it.

We continue: "A review of today's goals for energy efficiency shall provide a basis for designing a new goal that does not limit the transition or new establishments in the industry, but at the same time steers towards a socio-economically and resource-efficient use of energy and power in all sectors."

What it is about today's goal that yields such consequences that one cannot have socio-economically or resource-efficient use is highly unclear. What consequences it will have in the meantime, while one tries to develop such a goal, who it is that shall do it, in what way, and what prerequisites one wants, there is nothing at all about.

What really has consequences here is that the work on energy efficiency suffers. If it had been in normal cases and one thinks that one should review a target, one does that first, and then one presents a new target to the Riksdag so that we do not get a gap.

This follows exactly the same scenario as the climate issue. Instead of saying that one is scrapping the goals in the short term - in this case, energy efficiency - they are reviewing them, but they have not said how, when, and above all, not why.

When the government now uses the Swedish National Audit Office's report as criticism against previous governments, including its own previous policy, it would perhaps be reasonable, when submitting propositions oneself, to start following the guidelines and recommendations that the Swedish National Audit Office has given. Unfortunately, it seems to be rather the opposite. This proposition does not even have half as long a consequence analysis. It completely lacks scenarios in the analysis and completely lacks assessments. There is not a single figure that has anything to do with the years that the government itself mentions. They simply cannot be assessed.

There is actually a bit more in the report that is worth highlighting. We from Centerpartiet are submitting a number of proposals.

The electricity grid should be seen to a much greater extent as a state matter. A fundamental infrastructure, like motorways, should be built out where it is needed. Therefore, we believe that all large-scale power that wants to connect to the main grid should be allowed to do so with the help of already collected bottleneck revenues.

We are talking about 60 billion kronor sitting in an account at Riksgälden without being used, even though we know that Forsmark's nuclear reactor could have its power increased, even though we know that the connections to offshore wind power would make it possible to build them faster. Still, one waits, even though we know that the business sector needs the electricity soon. There is talk of a 50 percent increased need by 2030. These are enormous volumes that must come in quickly. If the government does not solve the problem with 2030, there will be no nuclear power by 2045 either. It must be solved here and now. Otherwise, we will see large industrial projects fall.

If we look further, we can more clearly see issues that also need to be discussed.

I would first like to take the opportunity to move for approval of reservation 16, which concerns the electricity grids.

In order for everyone to become winners in the climate transition and want to contribute to the expansion of more electricity production, functioning compensation systems for landowners, municipalities, and neighbors are required. When such compensation systems are in place, it will accelerate, simplify, and improve the permit processes as well. This applies to both the electricity grid and electricity production. Here it is so clever that the proposals are already on the government's desk. They are fully prepared and fully referred. And yet, nothing is happening. This is the case even though all parties in an Agenda debate a couple of months ago spoke in unison and even though the Prime Minister stated that they were needed. Still, the proposals do not come. Why?

We are in complete agreement that the permit processes must be radically shortened. The problem is that the government's tinkering here and there leads nowhere. Simplifications of regulations are needed on a broad front, not just within the energy sector but for the entire business community. It would also free up time at county administrative boards, courts, and police authorities, so that they can attend to things that are truly important.

An example of the "eye-wash" is how one chose to abolish the dance permit but forgot to mention that the public-house owners instead had to submit a notification. It ended with public-house owners being prosecuted for listening to the government when they said that the dance permit was abolished. We see the same thing in the energy sector. Few simplifications and improvements are occurring.

What the government does well, however, is to fixate on power production, but they forget important pieces of the puzzle such as transmission, flexibility, storage, and efficiency. All of these things are included in the report, but we have heard nothing about this from the government representatives. These pieces are crucial for releasing capacity, power, creating lower electricity prices, and increased competitiveness in a strengthened electricity system in the near term.

The electricity grid regulation needs to be reviewed so that it is not only expansion that provides compensation. Batteries on wheels must also help the electricity system, not just stationary batteries. But the government does not seem interested in any of this. It might not result in grand press conferences, nice ribbons, and shovel-turnings, but they are needed for the system, for competitiveness, and for the climate transition.

The list of what is truly needed can be long. The last thing I want to highlight in the difficult security situation that Sweden finds itself in is Gotland's electricity supply. Svenska kraftnät needs to speed up the expansion immediately, ensure that the plans that have been sitting on the back burner are completed by 2030 at the latest. It is absolutely vital to have redundancy in Gotland's electricity supply, especially given the strategic situation. The government needs to act here.

Obviously, there is no lack of issues to tackle. On the other hand, there seems to be a lack of will to look beyond the nuclear power rhetoric and a will to act on what is needed here and now. There is much that does not reach the media's spotlight, but it still needs to be done. The government does not seem to have understood. Unfortunately, the bill will come faster than anyone imagines; diminished competitiveness, delayed and more expensive climate transition, a worse security situation, and higher electricity prices. The Center Party is ready to solve the issues, sit down, discuss seriously for real, and give the business community the long-term perspective they demand. Now the ball is in the government's court. Are they prepared to do the same?

In this speech, Birger Lahti (V) concurred.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for a vivid speech.

I am reflecting on a few things. One can broadly say that Germany has, for the most part, pursued Center Party-style politics. They have shut down nuclear power, and they have forced renewables into the system. Furthermore, they have not looked at the consequences. Just as I always nag about, they have not had enough balance and reserve power.

That policy has been incredibly devastating. German industry is fleeing. It is said that 30 percent of the largest electricity-intensive industries are considering emigrating, moving to other countries where electricity prices are significantly better. Furthermore, we Swedes are affected by German electricity prices given the pricing model and the fact that Germany only has one electricity zone. German policy hits us twice, so to speak.

It is also interesting to hear the member talk about power increases in nuclear power. First, one is involved in shutting down reactors, and now one suddenly wants to proceed with power increases. One has obviously not understood the consequences of one's own policy.

I have a couple of concrete questions. The member mentioned that Centerpartiet wants a goal of 100 terawatt-hours by 2030. Where should these be distributed? What should they consist of? How is it to be done?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! First, I want to issue a rebuttal. The Centre Party has criticized Germany's Energiewende. It is completely backwards. One should have started by shutting down coal power. That is completely central and obvious for us. Obviously, one should also have divided the country into electricity price areas. This has very large consequences, not least for southern Sweden, given that one is actually exporting its problems to other countries.

The government should act here. The Sweden Democrats could perhaps take the initiative given the leverage one has in the government. My first question back to Jessica Stegrud is whether one is prepared to act so that Germany is forced to introduce electricity price zones. It is Jessica Stegrud and the Sweden Democrats who hold the opportunities.

The second thing is that people talk about the industry emigrating from Germany. That is exactly what we see ahead of us in Sweden, if we do not solve the electricity needs in the short term. There are enormous needs until 2030. If we do not solve them, the industry will move to where they get sensible conditions.

We cannot just think that we will solve everything with nuclear power at some point in the future, at best maybe 2035. That is truly at best. Westinghouse says that if one had ordered yesterday, they would have solved the problem by that time, but there are still no such plans from the government. They will start moving to other countries, and we will see large projects fall.

Let me answer the questions concretely. What do we see ahead of us? We know that we can increase the output of nuclear power. It is about opportunities if one gets sensible conditions for the grid. It is the grid we act upon, not the market. There we can imagine 2-5 terawatt-hours, according to Vattenfall. Bio-power can, according to Svebio, increase by 10-15 terawatt-hours. According to Svensk Solenergi, solar energy can increase by 30 terawatt-hours. For offshore wind, it is 70 terawatt-hours according to Energiforsk. For onshore wind, it is 35 terawatt-hours according to Energimyndigheten and Energiforsk. Efficiency gains can, according to Energimyndigheten, amount to 25 terawatt-hours. If we add this up, it becomes approximately 175 terawatt-hours that we can solve by 2030.

A goal of freer capacity of 100 terawatt-hours is not entirely impossible, if one actually wants to.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is these electricity prices that have caused problems even in Sweden. It is precisely the same development, and it has been based on the policy that previous governments, including the Center Party, have pursued.

What is never taken into account is that the system must be balanced when there is no wind. Svenska kraftnät's forecast is now that one needs to spend 20 billion per year on balancing services. That was not needed previously.

Furthermore, we are working together with the government in parallel. We are trying to ensure that we will have a long-term, reliable and predictable energy mix. That is why we have ensured to pave the way for new nuclear power and also for life extensions. It is the very cornerstone of the system.

As I have mentioned earlier in today's debate, it is also about the faster measures: to maximize the combined heat and power, the hydropower, and the other types of energy we have.

Again: Simply adding massive amounts of electricity production to the power system in the form of weather-dependent wind power is not the solution. Furthermore, I never hear what it is supposed to be complemented with. That is what one must do. A system cannot consist of only weather-dependent power. It does not work. But we never get any answer to that, instead, the ball is constantly thrown back, a lot of things are demanded, and responsibility is not taken for the policy that has actually been pursued.

I know that the Center Party has an enormous enthusiasm for wind power, which destroys property values and natural values and does not add what the system as a whole needs to the system. That being said, wind power can be a part of the energy mix. But one must look at the system as a whole. I never experience the Center Party being prepared to do that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Unlike Jessica Stegrud, I substantiate my arguments.

We can start with electricity prices. Regarding lowering them, Energiforsk said quite recently that electricity prices could be halved if we get two offshore wind farms. As it happens, proposals for exactly that many wind farms are ready for a decision on the government's desk without a decision being made. This can furthermore be doubled with the proposal for as much solar power as lies on the county administrative board's desk without a decision being made.

When it comes to Svenska kraftnät and system services, it is said that it does not depend on solar and wind power in the system but on high system prices. That is what has created the high costs, and they are falling now as electricity prices fall. This has even had to be stated in debate articles.

When it comes to what we should do, the Center Party talks a lot about increased efficiency in hydropower. Here, the government does not seem to be able to come up with any proposals for hydropower's environmental assessments. You are pushing the processes further and further forward without referring anything.

We have talked about nuclear power. Bio-power is definitely controllable. Offshore wind produces relatively stably at sea. It delivers 95 percent of the time. Sun and wind complement each other nicely. We have also talked about battery storage, about efficiencies, so that we can cut peak loads, and about increased transmission. There are relatively many answers to Jessica Stegrud's questions.

But if it is such that one only has nuclear power as a solution, if it is the only hammer one has, then all problems also look like a nail. That is the problem for the Sweden Democrats and the government. One has stared oneself blind and developed tunnel vision.

It will cost. If nuclear power is the only solution, we will have to wait for 10, 15, perhaps 20 years. Jessica Stegrud spoke about it being expensive with just over 1 SEK for electricity from offshore wind. I can inform Jessica Stegrud that the guaranteed prices for nuclear power in the UK are currently at approximately 1.80. If you thought 1 SEK was expensive, we are talking about an additional 80 percent. It is very expensive.

If someone would like to build new nuclear power on market terms - let them do that then! Then we will see what wins in the end.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! It is not entirely favorable to enter so far into the debate. But for those who may have missed it, we are debating the Swedish National Audit Office's report on the energy policy of past decades. The report has been described as devastating in its criticism - rightly so, one must conclude.

From the report, it is clear that Sweden's electricity supply security has deteriorated significantly in recent decades, primarily due to political decisions. The lack of consequence analyses for the energy system, which has been mentioned previously, and a short-sightedness in decision-making are what stand out in the review. We have lived with the consequences for a while now. The electricity system is considerably more unstable than before, and periodically we have skyrocketing electricity prices, especially in the southern parts of the country.

It is against that background that the government has taken on the energy policy during this mandate period. It also forms the basis for the energy bill that the government is now to present to the Riksdag. It is therefore worth noting the criticism that the National Audit Office highlights, in order to understand how the energy policy that this government presents has been shaped.

I want to highlight specifically three areas from the Swedish National Audit Office's report that I believe are worth noting. The first area concerns nuclear power, which has been raised in the debate a number of times. It is interesting to look at the electricity tax on nuclear power, which the Swedish National Audit Office has also done. It was introduced by the Social Democrats in 2000 and was then gradually increased by subsequent governments. According to the Swedish National Audit Office's report, the final increase contributed to four nuclear reactors being decommissioned prematurely.

When the power tax was at its highest, it was around one-third of the plants' operating costs. This clearly shows that it was the Social Democratic-led policy that rigged the market against nuclear power. This stands in marked contrast to how the Social Democrats themselves have chosen to present the development. For a longer period, the image has been spread that it was the market that made nuclear power unprofitable. The National Audit Office's report shows that was not the case. It was the political decision to introduce and then successively increase the power tax that led to nuclear power being shut down in several places in the country, not the market.

What is also interesting to highlight from the report is the increase of the energy and carbon tax on combined heat and power in 2019. It was a step in the green tax shift that the then Social Democratic-led government pushed through. As a consequence, a number of combined heat and power plants reduced their electricity production. Others shut down their production entirely.

The decision had major consequences primarily for the southern Swedish energy supply. It contributed to the closure of Öresundsverket. It was a devastating decision for the southern Swedish electricity preparedness. Precisely Öresundsverket was the local production facility that could, on short notice, ensure the electricity supply in Malmö in the event of crisis or war.

The third area in the National Audit Office's report that is worth highlighting concerns the reactive handling of energy-related issues. In that regard, the policy has been extremely slow to initiate the processes needed to guarantee just the security of supply. Perhaps the clearest example we can see is the need for increased transmission capacity between northern and southern Sweden.

When the Social Democrats and, among others, the Center Party shut down Barsebäck, the intention was that the transfer of electricity from the north would replace the Barsebäck electricity. It follows naturally from this that it is necessary to expand and reinforce the transmission capacity between northern and southern Sweden. That is known. Despite this, the first transmission project between north and south will not be finished until 2033.

I emphasize again that these are not my opinions. I am raising the criticism that the Swedish National Audit Office has highlighted regarding previous energy policy. Taken together, what the Swedish National Audit Office has audited provides a picture of an energy policy where there was a complete lack of ability to see the consequences of the decisions that were made.

It is remarkable that several of our time's most decisive decisions in the energy area have been made without the politicians having asked what consequences they will have for the country's energy supply. It is particularly remarkable that the effects on the electricity system's stability and long-term ability for security of supply have not been taken into account. "Consequence analyses have sometimes been completely missing" writes the National Audit Office.

It is especially the southern parts of the country that have had to bear the consequences of these decisions. Power shortages, capacity shortages, and periodically skyrocketing electricity prices are the result of the policy that has been pursued.

During the evening, we have debated what conclusions should be drawn from the National Audit Office's report. I think that conclusions should be drawn not only for the energy area but for a number of policy areas where we need to look at the consequences of the policy, which should be based on facts and consequence analyses rather than party-political considerations and wishful thinking about how things should be.

Madam Speaker! The current government notes that the Swedish National Audit Office's observations and recommendations provide support for the fact that the reorganization of energy policy that the government is now carrying out is entirely necessary.

I have mentioned that the government has produced an energy policy direction proposal that includes a planning goal and a security of supply goal for the electricity system. The government has also taken a number of measures to secure the electricity supply and create long-term conditions for new planned and fossil-free electricity production. I believe that this is in line with the National Audit Office's recommendation that larger measures in the electricity area should be implemented over the long term so that there are clear conditions for achieving adaptations in the electricity system.

By taking this into account, the current government has taken important steps towards the large-scale expansion of Sweden's energy system that we face.

I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I did not intend to speak about consequence assessments at all, but rather to change the subject. There are more things regarding the electricity market and such that we are debating here today.

Among other things, a court ruling has been issued stating that additional electricity production is not so important given that we today have an electricity export that corresponds to approximately 20 percent of our production, and therefore there is no major need for more electricity production, especially not in southern Sweden. This is stated by the Land and Environment Court. It is also desired that the localization principle should be handled in entire electricity areas. A company that wants to establish itself in a certain location shall therefore conduct an environmental impact assessment for an entire electricity area.

My question to Louise Eklund is quite simply: Do the Liberals and the government think these are reasonable principles, or are you prepared to review the legislation so that we get a change in this?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! I suspect that the member is referring to the ruling that came today regarding a solar power plant outside Helsingborg. I do not wish to comment on the court's ruling, which I have not read in its entirety, but generally, I and the Liberals consider that the balancing that the County Administrative Board of Skåne, among others, has made previously, where one looks at what agricultural land should be used for, has not prioritized energy production high enough. They have looked at food production and other things and valued them higher.

I have not read today's court ruling and therefore do not want to comment on it. But I believe it is reasonable that we move energy production higher up in the order of priority, even when it comes to how we use the Swedish and Scanian agricultural land.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to agricultural land, there is a discussion. As a member of the Centre Party, I believe that ownership rights carry great weight. What one wants to do with one's land is up to oneself. There is nothing preventing one from replanting agricultural land if that were the case. But it was not what my question concerned, so we can set this aside.

There were two interesting principles that were raised in the court's ruling. It concerns how one chooses to interpret the legislation. I think it is perfectly reasonable to comment on that if one is interested in taking some action.

One thing is that the localization principle means that one should look at an entire electricity area when one wants to establish something. My first question is therefore: Do the Liberals and the government think it is an appropriate principle, and if not, are you prepared to do something about it?

The second thing is that the court uses the electricity export as an argument in its rejection. It is argued, therefore, that the need for electricity production is less because we have a large electricity export. I find this very problematic given how the forecasts look. If we do not build out today, it will be difficult to meet the needs that are forecasted. I think that only looking at the snapshot is a flawed way of thinking on the part of the court, but obviously, this is interpreted into the existing legislation.

Then my question is: Do you think, from the government's and the Liberals' side, that the legislation should be changed so that one does not only take into account the current snapshot but also future needs and forecasts? Furthermore, we know what needs Skåne has, and it makes it even more problematic that you have rejected this and looked at all of Sweden's exports instead of at the electricity production in electricity area 4, which is the relevant one.

I have, therefore, two questions. Do you think the localization principle regarding entire electricity areas is relevant, and do you think the court's reasoning that we still have an electricity surplus and exports today and therefore do not need additional electricity production is relevant? If you do not think so, what are you prepared to do?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Rickard Nordin, for the questions! I will choose not to answer that which directly concerns the court's statement today. I do not think it is appropriate.

Both I and the Liberals have previously spoken about Sweden's energy needs in total. The export we have had has sometimes obscured that we have periodically and regionally had major problems with both the power and the energy supply in total. It becomes misleading to speak about the total without taking into account the regional conditions. That is as far as I am prepared to answer.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Louise Eklund, for the presentation! I shall read from the Swedish National Audit Office's report: "It is, however, difficult to determine to what extent this increase affected the market actors' decisions regarding closure." This is written regarding the energy tax.

If we then look at what the market actors have said, we can read a statement from Lars G Nordström, then chairman of the board for Vattenfall, in an article in SvD: "There was no pressure from the political side. It was a purely commercial decision. We chose to invest in the five reactors that had the longest technical lifespan, and those required the least investment to upgrade."

"We had seven reactors running. One in Ringhals, which performed very poorly and ran on a waiver, had, among other things, corrosion damage in the bottom plate. It was connected to another reactor in Ringhals production-wise." So says Lars G Nordström. Furthermore, he says that the owners of Oskarshamn nuclear power plant were in the same situation. They had already in January 2014 notified that they were preparing to shut down reactor 1, Sweden's oldest reactor, which was put into operation in 1972.

Does Louise Eklund mean that Vattenfall's chairman of the board had no idea what he was talking about, or that he is lying blatantly to the Swedish media about what happened? That is what I would like to know.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Linus Lakso, for the question! What is said by the Swedish National Audit Office is not that the politicians have pushed and demanded a shutdown. What the Swedish National Audit Office addresses concerns how the tax system has effectively priced nuclear power out of the market. The tax system is determined by politics, and thus it is political influence.

It was this that I intended in my speech. It is therefore not about political pressure, but about how politics chooses to use, among other things, the tax system to price in or out different types of power, in this case nuclear power.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Louise Eklund, for the answer! It was good that this was clarified. But one can have different opinions about that, and then perhaps we will reach a more honest debate regarding the carbon tax.

The effects tax was introduced as a compensation for the storage of nuclear waste and for the costs that arise in connection with it. What was actually done was a trade-off, because the fee for the management of the nuclear waste was not high enough. There was therefore no huge difference there, if one believes that the polluter should pay and that all types of power, in the long run, if one ignores the introduction phases, should bear their own costs. In that case, I think the solution that was chosen is reasonable.

I personally think it is strange that it was placed as an effects tax and not directly on the nuclear waste fee. I don't know that history, however, but this was what was changed. It was correct in substance.

Since nuclear power does not pay for its insurance costs. One cannot therefore claim that it is a direct pricing out. In total, one must nevertheless consider that nuclear power is quite subsidized, as the insurance cost is judged to be significantly higher than what the electricity tax was. It is important to get the history right.

But since I have the floor and have the opportunity to ask a question, I would like to touch a little bit on the future and on the faster expansion of the electricity system that is needed.

Right now, the Liberals are saying no to 70 percent of all wind power in the municipalities all over the country, including in Skåne. I am really just wondering if Louise Eklund is satisfied with her municipal politicians who are stopping the incredibly important expansion, which is truly needed for Sweden's future.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! I must question the figure. It is more a matter of that I cannot imagine that the Liberals are involved in governing 70 percent of Sweden's municipalities.

But I will start with the first part, which I understand concerns the Swedish National Audit Office's criticism. It is precisely about the horse-trading that the member points out. Different costs are moved and different tax rates are used without looking at what the actual consequences are for the electricity system. It is rather about what the consequences are for, for example, the finances or how one manages to assemble a political majority for the proposals that one has. This is what I perceive as the core of the Swedish National Audit Office's criticism. It is therefore about not looking at what is best for the electricity system or what is reasonable. Instead, one engages in horse-trading with different tax rates or other things to achieve a political solution, which may not be the best solution for the electricity system.

I believe we are in complete agreement there. The best thing in the long term would be that all energy production should be able to bear its own cost. I believe we have a completely common line there. I believe we all parties should take away from the Riksrevisionen's report.

Then we can look at what we can do in the slightly shorter perspective. I experience that this government has taken several steps, compared to previous governments' policies. I raised this, among other things, with Öresundsverket, which concerns power production to achieve effect even in the southern parts of the country. There, this government has given approval to significantly more wind farms than you in Miljöpartiet managed to do when you sat in government.

I find it difficult to see that one would say no to 70 percent. I know that there is very large opposition to wind power locally. I believe we all see the need for all different types of energy. Then, one sometimes also needs to have production where it is inconvenient. The Liberals have been clear about this in their message all the time. We also see how offshore wind power can make the biggest difference in the somewhat shorter perspective, and there the Minister for Climate and the Liberals are working so that we can get more wind farms in place.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Climate policy is largely energy policy, our current Prime Minister often says. With that starting point, it is easy to evaluate the government's energy policy.

We have already established that it completely lacks a consequence description, and with that starting point, it can probably not be described as anything other than a total failure. The fact is that emissions are increasing sharply starting this year due to the right-wing government's policy, in contrast to how it was when Miljöpartiet sat in government, when emissions decreased significantly.

This is happening when we find ourselves in a serious situation regarding the ongoing climate crisis. We already see today how people in both Sweden and the world are affected by increasingly extreme weather. It is everything from flooded basements, washed-away roads and blown-down forests to tropical hurricanes and dying coral reefs.

At a time when we need to do everything to reduce emissions, we have a government that is doing the opposite. For the first time in 20 years or more, we have a government that actively and deliberately makes decisions to increase the emissions of harmful greenhouse gases.

Mr. Speaker! I actually think it shows a lack of sympathy for those who are affected by the consequences of climate change. These are people who have their homes flooded, as we have seen several examples of around Sweden this winter, not least in Skåne. It is a lack of consideration regarding forest owners who have their forests blown down. But above all, it is a lack of concern for our children and future generations who risk being even more affected by the consequences of climate change.

Mr. Speaker! The fact is that it has never been more important than now to manage to deliver a functioning energy and climate policy. When I speak with representatives for industry across Sweden – it concerns everything from the large industrial investments in the north to the extensive industrial investments on the west coast – everyone says the same thing. We need electricity at competitive prices now, not in 20 years. In 20 years, all industrial investments will have already moved to other countries. By then, it will be too late.

Such a failure would significantly hinder Sweden's ability to meet its climate goals. Fossil energy needs to be phased out as soon as possible. For every year that we use fossil energy, more and more greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere, driving climate change.

Both the industry and the climate researchers are therefore in agreement. Sweden needs to focus on delivering large amounts of fossil-free electricity quickly, cheaply, and in an environmentally friendly manner. But instead, most of it is going in the wrong direction. Carbon dioxide emissions are increasing. Electric car sales are decreasing. Sweden has even joined forces with Viktor Orbán's Hungary to stop a new EU law to restore damaged nature. Above all, the measures to increase the production of sustainably produced electricity are conspicuous by their absence.

Svensk Vindenergi estimates that approximately 45 terawatt-hours of new wind power can be added by 2030 and that an additional 100 terawatt-hours can be added between 2030 and 2035. Svensk Solenergi estimates that it is possible with 30 terawatt-hours of solar power by 2030. Already today, applications corresponding to 50 terawatt-hours have been submitted, so it is probably no implausibility.

But in order to speed up the expansion of land-based wind power, municipalities and neighbors would need to receive clear incentives to say yes. There are even already completed proposals here, and as has been pointed out previously, there should be a majority in the Riksdag. But instead, this government has devoted itself to bad-mouthing wind power.

I can inform the Liberals that it is in a report from Chalmers that one has compiled how the municipal veto is used. The Liberals are the least bad bourgeois party. When it comes to 70 percent and upwards, one therefore uses the municipal veto to stop wind power, not least in southern Sweden, where one says oneself that one wants more power.

As mentioned earlier, the government has offshore wind farms to decide on on its table.

Solar power is, as has been said, on a rapid march forward, and applications corresponding to virtually all of Sweden's nuclear power production have been submitted. But nothing has been done to speed up the connection possibilities and clarify guidelines at the county administrative boards.

We would need to invest to develop Swedish power and district heating with increased capacity and flexibility, but here we do not see much initiative.

We would need to improve the process for how connections to the power grid are distributed, so that social benefit and climate benefit guide it to a greater extent. But here the government has not taken any initiatives, from what I have seen.

I can take the opportunity to point out something regarding offshore wind power. There were about three applications that came in when we were in government. We approved two. Now, very many applications have come in. This government has, so far, approved a fraction, a few of those that have come in. I do not know if it is 10 or 20. The applications are, in any case, about electricity equivalent to 160 terawatt-hours. These are the ones that the government can decide on. One must, therefore, put the figures into perspective a little bit.

We would also need a policy for a functioning and powerful energy efficiency. It is the cheapest, most environmentally friendly, and also the fastest way to make more electricity available. We would definitely also need a clear planning goal for 2030. All of this is missing, however.

The problem is that one says one thing and does another. One says that one is for all fossil-free types of energy, but in practice, one opposes the renewable. On purely ideological grounds, one only wants to favor a single type of power, namely nuclear power. This will be very harmful for Sweden. Actually, it is not so much about what one thinks about nuclear power as a power source. The problem is that the government's plan for energy policy completely lacks anchoring in reality.

The probability that an investment in new reactors would stay within the timeframe until 2035 is virtually non-existent. If we look at nuclear power plants built in the rest of Europe, the picture is quite clear. I will take a few examples.

In France, Flamanville 3 is being built. The plan was a construction time of five years and a budget of 40 billion. The result is a construction time of at least 16 years or more - it is not finished. The real cost is now estimated at 150-200 billion, that is, four to five times the original budget.

In the UK, Hinkley Point C is being built. The construction time is 16 years or more. It is also not finished. The cost for the two reactors has completely skyrocketed to 600 billion Swedish kronor.

In Finland, construction of Olkiluoto 3 began in 2005 with a planned start of operation in 2009. The start of operation instead became 2023 - 14 years delayed. The construction time alone was 18 years. The planned budget was 37 billion, and the final bill is estimated at approximately 125 billion.

These are not exceptions. Compilations show that nuclear power projects suffer from the worst delays and cost increases if one compares them with large-scale projects in all categories. It is therefore incredibly stupid to put all eggs in one basket, but that is exactly what the government is doing.

Then we haven't even talked about the cost of new nuclear power. In a comparison of system costs for renewables versus nuclear power that the international energy organization IEA, Blekinge Tekniska Högskola, Chalmers tekniska högskola, and the Institute for Business Policy have made, the additional cost - that is, just the difference between a renewable system and one with ten reactors - amounts to between 1,000 and 5,000 billion that shall be placed on the taxpayers. These are calculations that have been made by researchers in energy systems at the aforementioned independent research institutes.

If we calculate these costs per household in Sweden, it amounts to a cost shock of from 8,000 kronor to over 20,000 kronor per year and household if one proceeds from the Institute for Business Research and their calculations - every year for 35 years. Furthermore, every Swede would risk 40,000 kronor each in the form of credit guarantees if any of these high-risk projects were to fail, which my previous calculation showed that the probability is quite large that they would. Regardless of what one thinks about nuclear power, it is therefore not economically sustainable. It does not work in practice.

I can only mention the figures for the sake of it: Chalmers, an additional cost of approximately 1,890 billion, IFN, an additional cost of between 1,400 and 3,850 billion, and BTH, an additional cost of between 500 and 1,000 billion depending on which time span one calculates on.

I can take the opportunity to mention that the Right Livelihood Award winner Mycle Schneider will come to the Riksdag tomorrow to present the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2023. He is one of the world's leading experts on nuclear power and is actually invited, among others, by a Kristdemokraterna Member of Parliament – a good initiative!

Schneider has spoken in Swedish media, and his judgment of the Swedish government's nuclear power plans was quite telling. Totally unrealistic poster politics that is not based on industrial reality, was his statement. In the same segment on P1, Paul Dorfman, a nuclear power analyst at the University of Sussex in the UK, says that there is a lot of "buzz" and a lot of hype surrounding nuclear power, but the reality looks different.

Mr. Speaker! When we design Sweden's energy policy, which our entire climate transition and our entire green industrial policy shall be built upon, it is quite important that one starts from reality as it looks. Then one needs to do a bit of a global analysis, and the government has not done that. It feels almost a bit mean to convey this, a bit like explaining to a child that unicorns do not exist. But perhaps it is better to say it as it is than to drive completely into the ditch.

Unfortunately, we see that a failed energy policy risks being repeated. Under the Alliance government, we were, as mentioned, dependent on electricity imports from Germany, with a large dependence on coal power. Now we see that the expansion rate is decreasing when it should be increasing. When industry has an enormous need for gigantic investments that will provide many jobs and are also completely crucial for our climate transition, the government is conducting a policy that, according to current forecasts, will reduce the expansion rate in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Speaker! In this report, there are very many important proposals that would need to be implemented to accelerate the expansion of electricity production. Miljöpartiet naturally stands behind all our motions, but for the sake of time, I only move for approval of reservation 3.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I hear the member mention "reality" over and over again. I hardly know what to say, for if there is anything that has characterized the Green Party's policy, it is that one has been very far from reality. Then we may have had different goals. That can be. But it is still very fascinating.

The opposition also lied, Mr. Speaker. The base plate on Ringhals 2 was repaired. It was done in 2015, and it was rust that was addressed. I worked with nuclear power myself during that period, so I happen to know that. Furthermore, the Nuclear Waste Fund, KAF, has nothing to do with the power tax, Mr. Speaker. These are directly incorrect pieces of information.

Enough of that. The Green Party's goal is to have 100 percent renewable already by 2040. The Green Party's policy is already being tested in Germany, and it is no success story. The shutdown of nuclear power led to a dependence on natural gas, which they then had to shut down. Coal plants are starting up again, and they are now dependent on imports to manage the situation. Large parts of German industry are calculating or considering moving abroad. This has not served either the economy, the growth, or the emissions particularly well.

The Green Party's goal is therefore that Sweden's energy production in about 16 years shall consist of 100 percent renewable. I have asked in several debates but never received any concrete answer: How is it going to happen? By that, I do not mean fantasies about hydrogen and battery storage that are supposed to be in place in 16 years, because that is completely unrealistic. I want an answer that somewhat relates to reality.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, we must, as we have said, stick to reality.

It is the case that the major problems that Germany, Sweden, and all of Europe have suffered through - the so-called energy crisis - actually have certain causes that we perhaps should talk a bit more about. They seem to be unknown to many in this debate. One cause is that primarily Europe, and thereby indirectly also Sweden, has been heavily dependent on fossil energy from Vladimir Putin's Russia - with which a number of Sweden Democrats, for the record, had close contacts before the war.

This is exactly what Miljöpartiet has warned against for a very long time, that is to say the dependence on fossil energy. It is naturally about the climate aspect but also about the security policy risks and that Russia has used fossil energy as a means of pressure in geopolitics. The problem is therefore not too much, but too little Miljöpartist policy. We should have invested in more self-sufficiency and an even faster increase in production, and we would have needed to develop these technologies much earlier. This, however, has been opposed by Sverigedemokraterna and other right-wing parties.

The truth is that Sweden was Europe's largest exporter of electricity after the Miljöparti's period in government. We had a gigantic surplus, the lowest electricity prices, and the most export of environmentally friendly electricity in the EU. We had the lowest use of fossil energy in the EU and the highest use of renewable energy. According to Svenska kraftnät, we also had the most secure electricity system in the world. I simply do not share Jessica Stegrud's perception or claims about reality in this case, and my arguments are based on facts.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! That is simply not true. The Green Party policy succeeded in Germany, where they shut down the planned nuclear power—which was fossil-free and furthermore had a smaller climate footprint than wind power. That was the problem: They made themselves dependent on fossil power by shutting down nuclear power. That is what the Green Party policy has led to in Germany.

I once again receive no answer to the question of how it is to be done in Sweden. Furthermore, Sweden had largely made itself independent of fossil fuels in the energy mix just through the transition to nuclear power from fossil, Mr. Speaker. We did that already in the 70s and 80s. We have already done our homework. To claim here that we were deeply dependent on fossil in our energy mix speaks for itself. That is not true.

Please answer the question now, Linus Lakso! How is it going to happen? I do not mean fantasies about hydrogen, battery storage and other things that are not on site and that will not be on site in 16 years on the large scale that would be needed in that case. I never get an answer to the question, because it simply isn't possible. It is, in fact, free fantasies and desk products that Miljöpartiet engages in. That is my point here. It is as far from reality as one can get.

I have said it so many times here in the chamber: if it doesn't blow, it doesn't blow, and then something else is needed. Hydrogen storage requires enormous amounts of electricity, and for that part, we have never tested it on a large scale. It is incredibly inefficient, and to believe that it will become cheap for an entire electricity system is astonishingly naive.

Please answer my question now!

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Firstly, I note that Jessica Stegrud does not have a single reference that supports her claims. It is freely taken out of thin air and made up. Perhaps it is perceived in Jessica Stegrud's filter bubbles and among the troll tails, but that is not how it works. One must be able to refer to facts if one is to claim to refer to reality.

Secondly, it can be useful to be able to distinguish between electricity and energy. What you are talking about is Sweden's electricity system, Jessica Stegrud. Sweden's energy system is still heavily dependent on fossil energy - up to 20-30 percent, primarily within the industrial and transport sectors. What Jessica Stegrud claims is therefore simply not true.

Thirdly, it is quite funny to claim that hydrogen would be inefficient. The electrolysis process to turn electricity into hydrogen, which the industry needs, has an efficiency of between 60 and 90 percent. Nuclear power has an efficiency of 30 percent. It is therefore a bit far-fetched to claim that this would be inefficient when one oneself advocates for a massive expansion of nuclear power, which has an efficiency of 30 percent. It does not hold up.

Market issues

As said: The costs I presented earlier do indeed come from independent universities and researchers within energy systems. That is the reality. I, Rickard Nordin, along with several others, have also very many times, both for Jessica Stegrud and for many others, accounted for how one can balance an energy system with a lot of variable power. We have proposed a planning goal of 10 gigawatts of base load power by 2030, which would solve the problems that Jessica Stegrud is concerned about.

I believe, therefore, that from now on we simply have to base ourselves on reality in the energy debate, Jessica Stegrud.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 4 April.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)