Market issues

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal in the matter.

More than half of the parliamentary term has passed, and it is really starting to be noticed what difference the change of government in 2022 made. The judgment on the previous government's work was severe. The National Audit Office sawed through every major energy decision at the heels. Not a single thought was devoted to the citizens and companies who would have to live with the decisions that the previous government made.

With a forced decommissioning of four reactors, punitive taxes on combined heat and power, and the removal of amounts of hydropower, the Social Democrats and the Green Party left the door wide open for Russian gas to become price-setting in southern Sweden.

The loss was not just lost production, high electricity prices, and worsened conditions for Sweden. Around the year 2020, however, a completely new problem had emerged. There was suddenly a significant shortage in transmission capacity from northern to southern Sweden, something that had not existed before. Consumption had not increased, and the transmission capacity had never been so large. How was that even possible?

The answer is very simple. Sweden's extraordinarily well-planned power system was built on the fact that there were twelve reactors in southern Sweden and large-scale hydropower in the north. With twelve reactors, southern Sweden could cover a significant part of its own consumption. The margins in transmission capacity were good. However, the entire plan for the power system collapsed when the red-greens wanted to shut down nuclear power plants at all costs. A total of six of the twelve fully functioning, climate-smart reactors were shut down. Every other one disappeared. At the same time, they stopped Vattenfall's plans to build two new reactors at Ringhals, which otherwise would have been ready to be put into operation right now, when they had been needed most.

The engineers who built the entire system warned them of the consequences in the 1990s, in the 2000s, in the 2010s, and in the 2020s. Unfortunately, it was not criticism that the previous government wanted to take to heart. Sweden's shortage in transmission capacity is actually a shortage in predictable power production, i.e., baseload. Now we stand here with an unbalanced power system where we must quickly build new predictable power production and transmission capacity, partly to compensate for the previous ill-considered policy, and partly to secure the electricity supply for the future.

Madam Speaker! It is here we see the great difference between governments. Instead of penalizing district heating, we welcome it. We removed the penalty taxes as the first thing we did and are now providing this important local electricity producer with investment support to strengthen it further. District heating is one of the few types of power with the potential to provide dispatchable electricity production where it is needed. The government has also saved Öresundsverket in Malmö from being sold and shipped to Asia, and it has now been ready for some months to deliver 450 megawatts to Skåne. Even Öresundsverket was a victim of the previous government's desire to phase out all dispatchable electricity production in Sweden in general and in Skåne in particular.

Another important part of the local power supply is small-scale hydropower. These small plants together account for 1,000 megawatts of dispatchable production, primarily in southern Sweden where they are needed most. The Social Democrats and the Green Party previously put forward an aggressive policy which meant that these plants and dams would be decommissioned. Lakes would be drained, century-old ecosystems wiped out, cultural monuments destroyed, and dispatchable electricity production ended. Furthermore, they intended to send the bill to private individuals, landowners, and farmers. Today, we instead have a government that is working to prevent this madness.

Previously, hydropower was seen as an enemy to be demolished. This government sees it as an important foundation that shall remain. Above all, the government intends to plug the large production gap that exists in southern Sweden with nuclear power – the only proven power source that can deliver clean fossil-free electricity to several generations of Swedes.

While it previously took, almost bizarrely, 14 years to build a high-voltage line, it is now expected to take 8 ½ years. It is naturally still a long time, but that is before the most recently decided proposals have taken effect. Recently, the government made a decision that overhead lines shall be used in the construction of new high-voltage lines. It is an honest prioritization; for large high-voltage lines, overhead lines are the only reasonable alternative from a societal perspective.

Burying cables would be appreciated by many landowners and others who are affected. But if we are to move forward, we must dare to make decisions. No one is prepared to pay for buried cables. This government dares to make the decision that everyone actually knows is inevitable. With this, we will now save both time and money.

One of the most important changes that has occurred in energy policy is that this government sees the power system as a whole. Energy must be cheap and it must be abundant and flowing. It is a prerequisite for Swedish prosperity. There are, after all, no wealthy low-energy countries. The energy cost does not consist solely of the electricity, but equally important are the costs for ancillary services and, above all, the power grid.

The Tidös agreement focuses on building a power system where the total cost is low and where it is the needs of the business sector that set the requirements. For it to work, there must be predictable power production in strategic locations in the country.

If we place a sole focus on building as many terawatt-hours of wind power as possible, it will require that power grids be drawn across and across the entire country. At the same time, our important base industry will be forced into flexibility, that is, to spend enormous sums on adapting to power sources that only deliver electricity when they feel like it – i.e., when the wind blows and the sun shines. It is a flexibility that is not possible and which makes impossible Sweden's future as an industrial nation. With high grid costs, forced to adapt production to the power sources, our industry will disappear.

Madam Speaker! While the parties in the Tidö cooperation are focusing on energy planning and view the power system as a whole, the opposition presents disconnected proposals without context or a plan. Standing against the Tidö parties is a fragmented opposition that oscillates between German energy policy and no policy at all.

I had actually intended to list all the contradictions, but I will not do so because there will be other debates where we can discuss them. Let me nevertheless state that there is not a single energy policy issue where the red-green opposition is in agreement. It is not just that one has different directions, but one often has completely opposite directions that are completely incompatible.

Who is it that is actually in charge? In the middle of this red-green mess stand the Social Democrats, who are also supposed to hold together the split opposition. The problem is that they themselves do not know what they want with the energy policy, but I hope that at least the Social Democrats, especially in these uncertain times in the world, will put Sweden and Swedish industry before the party. With Social Democratic members like Monica Haider, Mattias Jonsson and others, I hope that it will be possible. They are representatives of a party that believes in Swedish industry, and furthermore, they represent strong industrial regions in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! Presenting individual ideological experimental proposals does not create a functioning energy system that can build Sweden strong. The power system must be built on technical facts and proven, well-functioning technology. We Moderates focus on a system that functions as a whole. We want to see strategically placed production facilities that fit into our existing power system. It will make the total cost lower.

Choose the safe option for Sweden's sake and build a power system that makes it possible for households and companies to use energy when they want, where they want and, above all, at competitive prices.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I have two relatively simple questions that I hope we can clear up for the sake of clarity.

Mats Green raised the Swedish National Audit Office's criticism of the previous energy policy. It was, for example, a lack of impact assessments, and experts' criticism was not listened to.

One can certainly agree with a good deal of the criticism. There are things that should have been considered. In the light of the Swedish National Audit Office's previous criticism, I become curious about how Mats Green views the impact assessment and the consultation responses that have been submitted on the government's investigation into nuclear power financing. It is to serve as the basis for a bill that is to be presented shortly.

Now I am jumping a bit here, but Mats Green did so as well in his speech – so I think it is completely okay. When it comes to hydropower in general, the Center Party and the Moderates are in complete agreement. We were also in agreement on the legislation that was passed. It was Moderates and Center Party members who in many ways protected hydropower in the legislation. When we passed it in the Riksdag, we were in agreement. It was the consequences and follow-up effects that we did not foresee, and it is good that the government has taken a pause in these issues and will present proposals for changes.

Does Mats Green think that the proposals that the government has had out for consultation and have now presented are sufficient to address the problems?

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to hydropower, much remains, naturally. It is not even close to finished; there is much remaining there.

But I am glad that in the context of the time limit, we are in agreement regarding the pause. I also note that if I include the Center Party on the red-green side, the Center Party wants, which is commendable, to put a stop to the evictions, while the Left Party and the Green Party want to accelerate the evictions. This applies particularly in southern Sweden where the electricity is needed most. A number of millions are being spent to continue the unjust evictions. But to answer the question: Much remains, naturally.

Then it was the question of the financing of nuclear power. We do not have the time or opportunity to go through all the referral responses, but we can already state that we need to support new nuclear power. The power system requires base load. Nuclear power was shut down politically, and then, naturally, politics needs to ensure that the risk is managed that a new red-green government will shut down nuclear power, tear out hydropower, and tax away district heating. That is what they did as well.

I also cannot help but ask a question to the Centre Party. You have proposed that taxpayers, individuals, and small businesses should finance the connection for offshore wind farms. If one follows Svenska kraftnät's calculations, the Centre Party's proposal will entail costs of approximately 500 billion kronor. This must be put into relation to the loans that we have said we want to give to the nuclear power industry. Where will the 500 billion kronor come from?

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! It is not a matter of some 500 billion. I do not know where Mats Green has gotten that from. Svenska kraftnät has spoken of somewhere between 30 and 42 billion. Those are the figures that have been up in the debate. We also know that there are 65 billion in an account at Riksgälden that is to go towards grid expansion. It is therefore quite simple to see where the money comes from. That means that one does not need to bring in a single penny. But that does not belong here.

What I first asked Mats Green about concerned the Riksrevision's criticism and Mats Green's view on the impact assessment that was in the government's investigation when it comes to nuclear power financing. I received no answer to that.

Given that the proposition is now being presented, it would still be quite appropriate to answer whether one thinks the impact assessment that was included there is sufficient. A simple yes or no was needed. It is a fairly straightforward question. One has, in fact, previously highlighted the Swedish National Audit Office's criticism, and now we also see the massive criticism that has come against the investigation and precisely that lack of impact assessment, not least when it comes to the electricity market, which is what we are discussing right now.

When it comes to hydropower, Mats Green says much remains. It is somewhat unclear to me whether it is after the government has made the changes that it is said it will make, or if what remains is to present the proposals that have now been referred. Mats Green is welcome to clarify that.

The small-scale producers themselves say that it will probably get worse with the proposals that the government has put forward. So it does not help. It does not solve the problem. There are a number of different measures that could solve a lot of the problems and which the Centerpartiet has proposed.

Mats Green is very welcome to say what he thinks remains and, above all, what the government is expected to do about what remains, so that it becomes a bit clearer for those involved.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! Some of the questions that need to be resolved concern immemorial prescription, ownership rights, compensation, and a multitude of other such questions that need further examination.

I nevertheless note that we are the ones who agree on the importance of hydropower. Rickard Nordin represents a government alternative – I know that the jury has been out when it comes to this and that we do not know where the Center Party will dig in its heels – where everyone else wants to tear out the hydropower, especially in southern Sweden. Good luck with uniting with the Green Party and with the Left Party, who are allocating 50 million to accelerate the removal in southern Sweden!

Regarding the nuclear power financing and the various views in the referral responses, I note that there are many views. But the major industrial organizations and the business community state in their views that this is a good proposal and that it is necessary for Sweden in the future.

Again: We cannot have industries that are dependent on power sources that only deliver when they feel like it. It doesn't work. Therefore, we need the investment in the base load that the Centerpartiet was involved in forcibly closing.

I still want an answer to the question. According to Svenska kraftnät's calculations, the Center Party's proposal regarding connection fees for offshore wind power would cost between 516 and 602 billion kronor. Since Rickard Nordin and his party think it is provocative to invest in building up the base power that, among other things, Center has shut down, I wonder if he does not think it is provocative to invest – here it is not about loans but about pure grants – at least 500 billion kronor, again according to Svenska kraftnät's calculations? It is totally unrealistic.

Where will the money come from?

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: That question shall remain in the air, as this was a closing statement and Member Nordin has no further remarks.)

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Mats Green!

Sometimes when one listens to a debate here in the chamber, one feels that it would be fun if it were like for Pinocchio, that the nose grows when one lies. It is not, in fact, the first time we hear that six reactors have been shut down for political reasons. I can agree that it perhaps had a small pinch of significance how the political winds blew when it concerned two reactors. But to claim that it would only have to do with politics when it concerns all six reactors that are not in operation today is a lie. That is what I definitely want to assert, Madam Speaker.

I have two questions for Mats Green. The first one is quite simple. Do Mats Green and the Moderanerna agree on the energy policy? I can agree that long-term political handshakes would be good regarding things that are important for AB Sweden. It is not good for either politics or anyone else if it becomes election pork every four years regarding which path we should choose in the energy policy.

Do the Moderates and Mats Green believe in long-term rules of the game with the help of agreements across party lines? I am only asking that question this time around.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! It is claimed that it is a lie to say that six of twelve fully functional climate-smart reactors have been decommissioned directly and indirectly through political means. It is clearly the truth, especially when we saw a number of parties take the credit for the decommissioning. But now they stand there and pretend that it was the market that shut them down, when they politically taxed them out of existence and actually forced the closures. That is how it is.

I remember the discussion, the debate, and the vote here in the chamber in 2019 when we Moderates, together with our colleagues, tried to stop the decommissioning of Ringhals 1 and 2. We lost by a margin of one vote. Then all the other parties, the Center Party and the red-green parties, began to applaud. Now they are trying to run away from the responsibility and say: We have not decommissioned any nuclear power in Sweden. In that case, many of Sweden's population are also liars. Because that is what most people consider to be the truth. They know that it was that way.

Nuclear power has been taxed away, and closures have been forced. If one stands and denies it, we can actually occupy ourselves with denying both one and the other, including that the earth is round.

When it comes to agreements, it is clear that we believe in energy agreements and that they should be honored. I suspect that Birger Lahti refers to the energy agreement that we entered into at the end of the 10s. But could anyone have stuck to that? The conditions have changed, primarily due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Does one claim that it would still be relevant? If so, that is interesting. I cannot really see any party thinking that it is still relevant, that one could have made any change there, given the completely changed global situation and security situation. In that case, it is a rather remarkable claim.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Mats Green!

In that case, you were very forward-looking when you stepped away from the agreement in 2019, when there was no war in Ukraine. I ask because, of course, there was an agreement that I today consider to be reasonable. The Social Democrats tried to put together something that was sustainable. Nuclear power could be built at existing sites, even ten reactors. But then, it was without support.

The Moderates also thought it was a good idea. The same applied to the Christian Democrats. But then they stepped down because they felt that one word did not turn out well and that they did not have confidence in the signals to the market when it was written 100 percent renewable. Those were the arguments for why they stepped down.

We have deliberated on this regarding fossil-free throughout the entire mandate period that the Moderaterna have been in power. But the investors are still not lining up. That indicates that it will be expensive to build new nuclear power.

I therefore pose the question to the government party and Mats Green: Who is going to pay? We have no final sum on what it will land on with guaranteed price and investments. Who is going to pay for this? We just heard the Moderates' figure on how much the connection fee would cost. However, I cannot make it match the figures Mats Green refers to.

Again: Who is going to pay for the party for new nuclear power with the plans the government has?

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! Does anyone consider the previous energy agreement to be relevant? There is no party that holds fast to all of its positions there. That is how it is.

Who is going to pay for new nuclear power? It is about loans that are to be paid back. It is not grants straight into the pockets of the actors as the Vänsterpartiet wants to give wind power and solar power.

The greatest cost was when a shutdown of nuclear power was forced through. The cheapest and best option for everyone would have been not to decommission six of twelve fully functioning reactors. Birger Lahti denies that they are decommissioned, but it is a fact. It is also a fact that reactors have only been decommissioned under red-green governments, never once under a blue government.

Nuclear power is needed, especially for industry. There was a time when the Left Party stood guard over industry, the industry's jobs, and the industry's access to plenty of fossil-free electricity.

It is about providing loans to start up the nuclear power that has been forced to shut down. Why does the Left Party want to finance wind power and solar power with pure grants straight into the actors' pockets? Why should loans not apply there?

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

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating the Committee on Enterprise's report NU12 Electricity Market Issues, and I move for approval of reservation 9.

Sweden has one of the world's most stable and sustainable electricity systems, but we have challenges that must be solved. This concerns above all the electricity price differences, the north–south imbalance, and the grid capacity. Other countries, despite this, look enviously at Sweden and Sweden's completely unique energy mix.

Electricity is a fundamental prerequisite for our modern society and for the transition. Industry needs electricity to grow and transition, households to heat their homes, and the transport sector to transition. Electricity should be a right, not a luxury. But in today's Sweden, access to reasonable electricity prices is anything but fair. I feel it every month when I, living in electricity price area 4, pay my electricity bill. In February, the average spot price in my electricity price area was 103.88 öre per kilowatt-hour. This should be compared with electricity price area 1, where the price was 12.9 öre per kilowatt-hour. It is a big difference and not reasonable. Now, a review of the electricity price areas is underway. The question is where it lands, when the proposal arrives, and if it ultimately makes any difference for the electricity price.

We Social Democrats see the need for a fairer electricity market where households and companies receive stable prices and where we expand electricity production where it is needed most. We support a common European electricity market, but we believe that Sweden must prioritize building more production in the southern parts of the country. Here, offshore wind power and onshore wind power play a decisive role, but these are unfortunately being stopped by many municipalities in the south. It is therefore important to create incentives so that more municipalities will say yes to expansion.

Madam Speaker! We who live in southern Sweden, in electricity price areas 3 and 4, have for several years had significantly higher electricity bills than those who live in the north. We also see how large industries in the north benefit from low prices while companies in southern Sweden struggle for their survival. The solution to this is to build more electricity production in southern Sweden. It is about quickly establishing offshore wind power and onshore wind power. We know that the availability of electricity is crucial for the industry in the entire country to be able to develop.

We Social Democrats have proposed folkhemsel. The state purchases fossil-free electricity at stable prices and offers households a secure energy supply. But the government rejects this and refers to the fact that the market should solve the problem.

Madam Speaker! In this chamber, we agree that Sweden needs more electricity. Sweden has an enormous need to strengthen the power grids. Industry wants to electrify but is denied connection because the power grids are full, small companies want to invest in electric-powered production processes but are told that they must wait for several years for the power grid to be expanded, and households in southern Sweden are forced to pay dearly because the bottlenecks in the grid create large price differences.

We Social Democrats have therefore proposed a new model for electricity grid regulation. We want to see a tightening of the rules for the grid companies where they receive compensation for smart investments that benefit the consumers, not just for building new grids.

Madam Speaker! One of the most acute problems for Sweden's future electricity production is that the government is putting obstacles in the way of offshore wind power. In many other countries, offshore wind power is being built quickly and efficiently, but in Sweden, it is being slowed down by high connection fees.

We Social Democrats have proposed that the state should take a greater responsibility for the connection of offshore wind power to the electricity grid. We want to see a model where the state, just as in our neighboring countries, handles the connection in order to accelerate the investments.

The government is prepared to provide billions in support for new nuclear power, even though it takes longer to build and is more expensive than wind power. We Social Democrats believe that the support must be technology-neutral, because now it risks laying a dead hand over all investments in new production of other types of power. If investments are not granted in the short term, Sweden will miss out on the major industrial initiatives. This is neither logical nor fair. If Sweden wants more electricity production quickly, obstacles must be removed, not new ones created.

Madam Speaker! We live in a time of increased uncertainty, and this also applies to the energy supply. Cyber threats, natural disasters, and international crises can affect our access to electricity. It is therefore irresponsible of the government not to take electricity preparedness more seriously.

We have proposed that Svenska kraftnät should receive a clearer mandate to procure dispatchable electricity production and energy storage in southern Sweden to reduce the risk of electricity shortages. But the government has rejected this and argues that the market should solve it on its own. We know what this means: increased costs for electricity customers and an uncertain electricity supply. This is not acceptable.

In conclusion: This debate is about what kind of electricity system one wants. The Social Democrats want fair electricity prices, a faster expansion of the electricity grid, and an energy policy that benefits all of Sweden, not just certain parts.

The government lets electricity customers in southern Sweden continue to pay more, one hinders the expansion of offshore wind power and one lets the grid companies charge unreasonable fees.

We Social Democrats stand by our reservations. Sweden needs a new energy policy, a policy for justice and stable electricity prices.

(Applause)

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Monica Haider, for the speech!

It is getting quite late, and I actually hadn't intended to take the floor. But I really can't help it. It is still interesting to hear a Social Democrat living in Skåne standing there and complaining that electricity prices have skyrocketed and are volatile, that there is a lack of capacity and so on – very interesting.

We heard earlier a rather good account here from Mats Green from Moderaterna about how the Socialdemokraterna have shut down well-functioning, predictable, and fossil-free nuclear power. That is the reason we find ourselves in today's situation.

The Chairman spoke about transmission capacity. Yes, we lost nearly 1,000 megawatts when the Social Democrats were involved in shutting down nuclear power. We have stood here in the chamber many times. Again: It is not primarily more electricity we need. Often one hears Social Democrats boast that we produce and export more electricity than ever. Yes, it is true that we do so during parts of the year, but it is the capacity that is the problem. We do not have electricity where we need it, when we need it. This is the problem, and then more weather-dependent wind power, where the electricity comes and goes, will not help. So that is all.

The Social Democrats have no solution. They want to subsidize offshore wind power, which has proven to be very unprofitable. Such projects are built in the United Kingdom, and there, they have had to inject a lot of resources just to be able to start and build it. The lifespan is short, and there are problems with transmission and so on.

How is this actually supposed to work, member? Is this the Social Democrats' solution to the current power shortage and the high and volatile prices in Skåne?

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

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! Yes, I live in electricity price area 4 but not in Skåne, but in Kronoberg County, in Älmhult Municipality.

I do not intend to address everything that Member Stegrud put forward in his argumentation and his questions. These are questions that I believe we Social Democrats have answered thousands of times in this rostrum. There is nothing new under the sun.

What I can answer is that the electricity price zones were introduced and decided in 2011 under the Alliance government. So far, we still have the electricity price zones. It could be a solution to have a single electricity price zone, but I actually do not intend to address the other arguments. You know exactly where I and we Social Democrats stand, Jessica Stegrud, and we know exactly where you stand.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! I must say that it is unfortunate that the member does not want to address such concrete points, but if one has no answer to the questions, it may perhaps become difficult.

When it comes to the Social Democrats' problem picture, Madam Speaker, a lot more electricity must be fed into the system again, and it shall be offshore wind power. It doesn't matter what it costs or that it doesn't help the system as a whole – absolutely no matter. Here, there is some kind of ideological deadlock; it is obvious.

One can ask Svenska kraftnät, read in the Riksrevisionen's report, or look at various investigations – again: It is the dispatchable power we lack. That is the entire fundamental problem, regardless of where in electricity price area 4 one lives.

Then it is a bit of Social Democratic policy to believe that the solution is one and the same electricity price area. It can help temporarily, absolutely. It is under investigation and should not be ruled out, but the electricity price areas are not the cause of the underlying problem. The underlying problem is that we do not have a wise power balance – a good power balance, quite simply. We do not have predictable electricity. We cannot utilize the system as it should be utilized. It is this that is the problem and what causes trouble time and again.

Madam Speaker! When we stood here in the chamber and discussed this before Christmas, it was, as the member mentioned just now, extremely volatile and sky-high prices, which was due to the fact that it was calm and cold.

There has been a lot of talk about, among other things, Kriegers flak, which has not been built for very understandable reasons. There I had a question that I did not get an answer to: What would it have helped if we had had a lot more offshore wind power when it is not blowing and when it is cold? It would not have helped anything.

Thank goodness this government is pursuing a policy for the future. More predictable power is on the way, and it will solve a large part of the problems.

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

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! If the member had listened to what I said in my speech, she would have heard that I spoke quite a bit about the fact that we need more electricity production in southern Sweden.

In my speech, I actually did not only speak about offshore wind power and other wind power, but also about other types of power that we need. We need to do everything to achieve more production in southern Sweden.

I do not intend to say anything more.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! Without electricity, Sweden stops. Industries stand still, hospitals cannot provide care, public transport ceases to function, households are left without heat, and digital infrastructure collapses. Access to electricity and heat is quite simply an absolute prerequisite for our modern society today – for enterprise, for development, and for prosperity.

The consequences of previous energy policy are clear. We have moved from a robust, predictable energy system to one that is weather-dependent, and the result, which has been mentioned here a few times, is volatile electricity prices, impaired power balance, increasing differences between electricity price areas, and an industry that hesitates to invest.

The Social Democrats and their allies have long blamed the market and completely ducked their own responsibility. They have pushed for an energy mix that cannot guarantee the availability of electricity when it is needed, where it is needed. Despite this, they continue to advocate for more of the same medicine: more wind power, which must be combined with expensive and often undeveloped support services. It is a patching and mending built on wishful thinking and desk products.

Madam Speaker! Sweden needs an energy policy built on rationality and long-term thinking, not ideological dogmatism. Germany is a clear example of how a failed energy policy can have catastrophic consequences: skyrocketing electricity prices, reduced preparedness, and an industry in crisis.

Madam Speaker! I, along with the change of power, have gradually replaced ideology with rationality. The goal is to re-establish a stable electricity system with the conditions for increased demand and low electricity prices, something that is evident in the common energy policy direction, where two clear goals lie as a good foundation. It is both about a planning goal and a security of supply goal. In other words, we are moving from ideology to efficiency and utility.

The recent years have clearly shown that the need for new baseload power is great, and over the past year, we have worked diligently together with the government to establish the conditions for new nuclear power.

We have abolished the ban on new nuclear power at sites other than the existing ones and removed the limitation on the number of reactors. We have also issued credit guarantees of 400 billion kronor to facilitate investments in new nuclear power.

But we Sweden Democrats are also realists. New nuclear power takes time to build, and Sweden needs urgent solutions to manage the power shortage. Therefore, we have proposed that gas turbines should be installed in strategic locations to quickly be able to stabilize the electricity system. It is a pragmatic solution that has already begun to gain support.

Gas turbines have several advantages. They can be quickly put into operation and used both as base load and as regulating power. They can be placed near industrial centers where the demand is greatest and reduce the risk of power outages and bottlenecks in the transmission system. Western Sweden, where the power shortage has hit companies and jobs hard, sees this as a necessary measure.

With our reforms, we take steps towards restoring what once worked – a reliable, fossil-free and powerful energy system where nuclear power constitutes an obvious part.

We will continue to work to ensure that Sweden once again gets an electricity system that works for everyone, both households, companies and, not least, future generations.

We naturally support the proposal in the report, but I wish to move for approval only of reservation 15 under point 7, where we emphasize precisely the importance of keeping the gas power reserve updated as it, just as I mentioned, can be used to both stabilize the grid, dampen price fluctuations and increase transmission capacity, something that is needed more than ever.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I continue with my hopefully quite simple and clarifying questions.

I have read SD's motion 2024/25:1461 Incentives for growth. I understand that the member does not have an exact grasp of it, but it concerns, among other things, incentives for local electricity production. There, they talk about regionalized property tax.

A similar construction to the one described in this motion has been presented together with the other Tidö parties. They are talking about a construction similar to the property tax that is to go back to the municipalities. We in the Center Party think this is good. We might have wanted to go a bit further, but it is still good.

What makes me a bit thoughtful is that this week I read a debate article from the Sverigedemokraterna in Dala-Demokraten. It is not only local Sverigedemokrater but also members of parliament who have signed this article, which questions precisely these incentives.

Then I wonder what actually applies. Are the Sweden Democrats for or against a regionalized property tax on electricity production? One thing is said in parliamentary motions and another thing in debate articles, so I would like to have a clarification from Jessica Stegrud.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for an excellent question, but I must actually back down from answering it. I cannot follow up on that answer.

I assume it is local conditions that play a role. I know that in that region, for instance, people have been overridden in referendums. There is a major problem seen in the introduction of wind power there – that can play a role. Wind farms are being built against the local population's will, and we are strongly against the removal of the veto. It could be such things that play a role. I have no concrete answer on that at this stage.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I understand that the member does not have answers regarding local conditions. I have great respect for that, because one cannot keep track of everywhere.

I still want to continue asking whether one is for or against a regionalization of the property tax on electricity production. This has been agreed upon with the other Tidö parties, and a motion has been submitted regarding it in the Riksdag. I think the Sverigedemokraternas energy policy spokesperson can answer that. Are you for or against? There may be local opposition, but in that case, the member can speak a bit with their colleagues and explain what applies at the national level.

It would be good to have a clarification, because I think it is good that we are in agreement here in the Riksdag regarding precisely the regionalization. Centerpartiet has been involved in driving this for decades.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! Yes, what has been agreed with the Tidö parties is what applies at the current moment.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! The importance of low and stable electricity prices for Sweden's households and companies cannot be overemphasized. It is what lays the foundation for our welfare, and the electricity bill is perhaps the largest expense item in very many households.

This government has taken giant strides to rectify the many imbalances and remnants of previous political decisions that have characterized the electricity market we have had over the last decades. The purpose has been to re-establish a functioning electricity system with increased electricity production and lower electricity prices. The ambition with this has been to increase production, largely so that the electrification of the business sector and industry can continue.

Sweden and Europe have deregulated electricity markets. The electricity grids are interconnected, and electricity is to flow across national borders. In that way, it can be said that the EU countries have decided to create a common internal market for electricity and that they use the common regulatory framework to achieve this market.

Unlike other markets, however, the electricity market has the characteristic that there must always be a balance between consumption and production for the physical system to function. The electricity market must therefore be designed according to the conditions in the physical power grid.

That has not always been the case. We saw that clearly in the report that came from the National Audit Office last year. The National Audit Office has audited the energy policy of past decades and has at times described it as devastating in its criticism, perhaps rightly so.

It has been clear that a number of political decisions have been made where the driving force has not been to obtain a functioning power grid and where the understanding of the physical conditions in the power grid may have been deficient. Thus, the Swedish National Audit Office concluded in its report that there have been clear deficiencies in the impact analysis of the energy system and that the decision-making has been characterized by short-sightedness. The consequences that we have lived with for a very long time are a more unstable power system than we had previously and periodically skyrocketing electricity prices, especially in the southern parts of the country.

Madam Speaker! This government has wanted to achieve a change in this. It has wanted to establish a system where all power types have equivalent rules of the game and where the support services required for a well-functioning electricity system are priced so that the power types that contribute such support services are also compensated for this.

What has also been emphasized by this government is how the distribution of responsibility between the actors in the electricity system shall be clarified. A number of decisions have been made to achieve exactly this. It is about ensuring the operational security of the electricity system, among other things by procuring dispatchable electricity production. It is also about both planning and promoting dispatchable electricity production where it is most needed for the system. The goal is to create a better balance between electricity production and electricity consumption in different parts of Sweden so that Sweden can, in the long run, become a unified electricity price area.

Perhaps the most important thing that has been delivered by this government is the shift in energy policy where, instead of talking about individual types of power, we discuss what characteristics we want the electricity system to have.

In the long-term direction for energy policy, the government has proposed a planning goal that the planning of the Swedish electricity system shall provide the conditions to deliver the electricity needed for increased electrification and to enable the green transition.

A delivery security goal has also been established that the Swedish electricity system shall have the ability to deliver electricity where there is demand, at the right time and in sufficient quantity, to the extent that it is socio-economically efficient.

I think that these are the measures required for us to be able to re-establish a functioning electricity supply throughout Sweden. This time, it shall be the laws of physics and the needs of the energy system that guide the efforts, not short-sighted political wishful thinking.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker: With this government, we have seen a number of measures to secure the electricity supply and create long-term conditions for new planned and fossil-free electricity production in Sweden and in Europe. It is entirely in line with the National Audit Office's recommendation that larger measures in the electricity sector should be implemented over the long term and so that there are sufficient conditions to achieve adaptations in the electricity system.

I therefore move for the proposal in the committee's report to be approved.

(Applause)

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! We are debating the Committee on Industry's report on electricity market issues. I will begin by describing some of what has happened during the last ten-year period.

In 2014, the highest electricity price was 1.12 kronor per kilowatt-hour in price area 4 and 42 öre in price area 1. We exported 15.6 terawatt-hours.

The highest price ever paid for electricity by a Swedish customer was the price on 30 August 2022 at 19.00–20.00 in price area 4. It was 8.50 kronor per kilowatt-hour.

Doesn't that say something about the model we use to price our own produced electricity? We exported 33 terawatt-hours during 2022, and one can hardly blame severe cold on August 30, 2022, at 19:00–20:00.

If the majority of the Swedish people do not think that something is wrong with the system when such is a fact, well, then I actually do not know how fact-resistant one can become.

Madam Speaker! I will return to the solution to the problem with the dysfunctional pricing system affecting Swedish electricity customers further along in my speech.

Another thing that happened in 2016 was that the Social Democratic government concluded an energy agreement with the Moderates, Christian Democrats, Centre Party, and Green Party. Actually, it was a good agreement, where it was established that, for example, nuclear power could be built on existing sites as long as it is done on market terms – that is, without state support. I and the Left Party had difficulty joining it because of a wording in a congress decision. Today, I would have it much easier to join such a wording.

We would like to have an energy settlement and preferably a cross-bloc agreement. One thing one must be honest about is that it is not good when energy policy is subject to election promises every four years.

I go back to the agreement. The Moderates and Christian Democrats realized that it is not easy to attract investors to new nuclear power when it states that one is to have a 100 percent renewable energy system by 2040. They would gladly use the word fossil-free instead of renewable. Therefore, they left the agreement in 2019. And what happened then? Well, they won the election and formed governments with the help of the Sweden Democrats, regardless of what Ulf Kristersson promised Hédi Fried.

They then promised that new nuclear power would be built and the first spade would be turned within the mandate period. But replacing the word renewable with fossil-free did not help. The investors are still conspicuously absent. Now, they are therefore seeking to finance new nuclear power with state guarantees – whatever the cost may be.

As much as I would like to understand the positions of other parties, I cannot understand why space is not given for other thoughts if it turns out that we succeed in achieving sufficient production, power, and flywheels with other pieces of the puzzle that even become cheaper. It has become a bit of a religion to say that nuclear power must be built.

I just have to provide some facts, if there is anyone listening besides those who are in the chamber, for they I believe know about this. But there is a development occurring now. Skellefteå Kraft has invested in Rengårds hydropower plant. There, an upgrade of a turbine can increase the power output from 35 to 71 megawatts. That means doubled power output. How many such examples exist among our hydropower plants in Sweden? All such things must be evaluated and impact assessments must be made before one saddles future generations with something that perhaps would not have been needed at all.

Madam Speaker! The climate crisis is acute, and a systemic shift is needed to quickly transition Sweden to reduce emissions. That is crystal clear. But to achieve a rapid and comprehensive climate transition, parts of society need to be electrified. I believe that, in fact, all parties agree on that.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent energy warfare from the Russian side have contributed to skyrocketing electricity prices in Europe because many of the member states have not taken the climate threat seriously and have failed to transition to fossil-free alternatives. In Sweden, however, the situation is completely different. Sweden is Europe's largest exporter of electricity, and the Swedish energy system is to be considered robust, regardless of what the other parties say.

The production levels in Swedish hydropower, nuclear power, and wind power are intact, and production costs have not increased significantly during recent years. Nevertheless, Swedish families and industries are hit very hard by the ongoing situation on the continent. I and other representatives for Vänsterpartiet have for a long time pointed out the risks with the pricing model that allows continental electricity prices to infect the Swedish market. I therefore advocate for a model where the internal market is separated from the export market.

Everyone probably knows the model because there has been a lot of talk about it. It is called the Beken model, and we renamed it to Swedish prices. It means that the electricity consumed in Sweden is priced first, and then the surplus is exported at prevailing European prices. Fine! It is not a lack of free movement for goods and services. The model means that Sweden's four electricity price areas remain, and therefore the industry's confidence in the cheap electricity in northern Sweden is not jeopardized. But it is separated from the electricity that goes to export.

I believe that the government should promptly return with proposals on how the model with Swedish prices on electricity can be introduced and also that the government should act at the EU level and declare its intention to promptly introduce the model with Swedish prices on Swedish electricity. Consultation processes should also be initiated with other EU countries in general and our neighboring countries in particular to, among other things, clarify technical aspects and a timetable for the introduction.

I am, therefore, strongly critical that the government has not done enough to protect Swedish electricity customers from hideous price peaks. In addition to the proposal on Swedish prices that I have just outlined, I also believe that the grid owners are exploiting the system by raising their fees as much as possible and that the state should ensure that society owns more of the infrastructure for the socially important function that electricity distribution actually is.

I view with concern how foreign actors act on the Swedish electricity market in a way that has negative consequences for Swedish electricity customers. This includes, among other things, that large wind farms sell their production to foreign companies on long-term contracts. I believe that the pledging of future electricity production by companies in other countries is an issue that should be scrutinized in light of the increased domestic need for electricity for the transition. The ever-increasing interests of foreign companies in the electricity market should also be noted from a security policy perspective.

Madam Speaker! I naturally stand behind all of the Left Party's reservations but now only move for approval of reservation 2 in the report.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Birger Lahti, for the speech! The change from going from 100 percent renewable to fossil-free has played a role. It may sound like a word that has no meaning, but it has played an enormously large role. I intend to refer to a previous exchange of remarks, where the member accused the Moderaterna of lying in the same class as Pinocchio when it comes to the shutdown of Swedish nuclear power.

Madam Speaker! I report as a witness from reality. I have worked with energy investments in all types, including nuclear power. I know what it is like to commit to investments in specifically nuclear power. I know what the surcharges have done. I know what the electricity tax did to the calculations. I know what the stated objective from certain parties that nuclear power should be shut down does to the willingness to invest and much more.

It has also been of great significance that renewable energy has been subsidized into the system. It has changed what is called the market very much. Here, Birger Lahti has a witness from reality, quite simply.

There is a lot of talk about costs and that it is so expensive to invest in new nuclear power. It is clear that investors are terrified that Vänsterpartiet will have influence in the next mandate period, because Vänsterpartiet wants to shut down all nuclear power, and preferably as soon as possible.

I return to my question since we are talking about costs and large investment costs anyway: Who is going to pay for the replacement of all nuclear power and all dispatchable power that we have today, i.e., that which Vänsterpartiet wants to see?

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Jessica Stegrud, for the question!

If the member had listened to what I said in my speech, she would have had one of the questions answered. I said clearly and distinctly that today I would not have a problem joining the energy settlement made in 2016, where it stated that it is free to build new nuclear power at existing sites without support. If the member had listened, she would have received an answer to the question of whether I want to shut down all nuclear power at once.

Then one refers approximately to the alternatives of subsidized renewables and wind power. But the electricity certificate system was neutral towards the taxpayers. It was the collective that paid in the electricity certificate system. No state funds were involved.

Somewhere in an exchange today regarding new nuclear power, it came out that it is a loan that the Moderaterna are talking about. That makes me a bit curious, because one is talking about a price guarantee of 80 öre per kilowatt-hour. I hope that everyone listening hears that it is a loan when one guarantees a price of 80 öre for new nuclear power. There are many puzzle pieces there for those who listen closely. There are many holes that need to be filled before one becomes credible.

I still maintain that the claim that all six reactors not in operation today were shut down using political means is a lie. It has been significant, but who were the ones who removed the electricity tax from nuclear power? It was the old government.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Birger Lahti!

I actually listened more than the member perhaps thought. In the energy agreement, the goal was 100 percent renewable by the year 2040. If we are talking about nuclear power investments, reactors can run for approximately 80 years. One can, therefore, extend the lifespan by up to 80 years today. In that case, 15–20 years is far too short a time. One must know that one can continue to exist beyond 2040, and that is the problem.

I have listened, and I know very well which decisions have directly or indirectly influenced the shutdown of nuclear reactors. It is not a lie but simply facts. It is quite simply about market conditions, and these are set by politics.

We usually have these duels in our debates, but once again I get no answer. What will it cost to eventually shut down all nuclear power, even if it might not happen as quickly as the Left Party wants in its party motion? Who is going to pay for it? The Left doesn't just want to nationalize the production but also the grids. What would that not cost? These are enormous values.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member again for the answers provided.

I feel secure that Svenska kraftnät today has more than 60 billion [SEK] flowing from bottleneck revenues, money that should go to grid investments as soon as possible. I believe that they are working on that.

I feel secure knowing that we have investors standing in line to invest in renewables, because they know that the calculations add up. These investors are standing in line, unlike those who are to invest in nuclear power. Apparently, it has not helped to switch to the word fossil-free, because they are not standing in line. Now they want to provide credit guarantees and price guarantees, and yet it still seems to be moving slowly.

I want to assert that we have a system today that works. It is said out in the world that Sweden has the most robust system that exists when one looks at the prices. I am very critical of how people are being skinned with marginal pricing, but I feel secure that it will be significantly cheaper when all the other pieces are in place. I took the example of hydropower and how much there is of it. Investments are made on market terms and more output can be obtained.

I would even say that I am prepared to extend the life of reactors if that is what is needed for us to have security. But the idea of building new nuclear power by force, with a religion, I find very difficult. I hope that sinks in.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Before I give my speech, I wanted to try to clarify a few things that were said in a previous exchange of remarks, which we did not have the opportunity to respond to, regarding the cost of connecting offshore wind power.

In the investigation that Svenska kraftnät conducted in June 2022, it was stated that an annual production – not installed capacity – of 40 terawatt-hours of offshore wind power would cost between 30 and 42 billion. The Energy Agency also made a calculation some years earlier, where they stated 0.8 to 1 billion per installed annual production terawatt-hour. This means, therefore, approximately 3 öre per kilowatt-hour.

Svenska kraftnät has gone public in Aftonbladet and stated that the Moderaternas communication on this issue is very misleading. It might be good to keep that in mind.

If one were to translate these 512 billion, I believe that was what Mats Green spoke about, into costs for connecting offshore wind power, it would correspond to an annual production of over 500 terawatt-hours of offshore wind power, which would thus mean a tripling of the entire Swedish electricity system.

It goes without saying that Mats Green needs to read his figures once more and do some better counting. I do not believe he is the Riksdag's best mathematician; there I am still undefeated. Mats Green is very welcome to come back and explain how he reasoned.

Now to my speech: Electricity market issues, which is what this is actually about, usually play a rather obscure role. I believe, however, that this is about to change, because in light of the effects of the proposal we see from the government's side – with hundreds of billions in subsidies unilaterally directed towards nuclear power, completely without analysis – the electricity market will begin to crack. It will no longer be a market when one enters with such massive subsidies.

This is also said in the responses to the government's own investigation. If one looks at the compilation made of the responses, there is actually only one category of responding bodies that is positive, and those are the ones that would receive the subsidies. All others are negative or possibly neutral.

Of course, it becomes difficult to invest in anything else when the policy is prepared to subsidize a single type of power without any consequence assessment whatsoever. The consequence assessment that has been made in the investigation is significantly shorter and less comprehensive than what the Swedish National Audit Office has previously criticized.

For me it becomes strange, because I know that this government is a bourgeois government. To then engage in planned economy is actually sad. Obviously, there is unfortunately only one economically bourgeois party left in this Riksdag, and it sits in opposition and is called Centerpartiet. We know that the market will handle things significantly better than politicians.

In this report, there are also a number of other things that are very important to tackle. The electricity grid, for example, should be seen as a state matter, a basic infrastructure that, like motorways, should be expanded where it is needed. Therefore, we believe that all large-scale production that wants to connect to the main grid should be allowed to do so. The money is already collected: There are 65 billion on the Riksgäld's account. It does no good there. That money must start working in the service of society. We know that Forsmark's nuclear reactor could then have increased its output. It would have been output directly into electricity area 3, where we know it was needed. But the costs for the connection have been too great, and therefore it has not happened.

We know that many of the offshore wind projects that the government has rejected with questionable arguments could have been built significantly faster if the connection had been moved forward. For example, it would have provided more electricity even in electricity area 4, i.e., in the southern part of Sweden – precisely where it is needed most. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 7.

In order for more people to be able to become winners in the climate transition, one must want to contribute to more electricity production. This requires a functioning compensation system for landowners, neighbors, and municipalities. When such compensation systems are in place, conditions are created to change, simplify, and accelerate the permit processes for the expansion.

It is not just about electricity production but also about the electricity grid. The government has unilaterally followed the grid companies' line and decided that overhead lines are what apply, regardless of what conditions exist locally. That also creates problems. If one had instead focused significantly more on land-saving technology, acceptance would have increased. It does not necessarily have to be about burying, but it can be about co-location, utilizing higher voltage levels, building taller grid poles, and so on. That one does not even want to investigate the alternatives creates local conflicts, and then the permit processes become longer.

The permit processes should be shortened radically. The government's dithering does not lead far enough. Simplifications of regulations are needed on a broad front, not just in the energy sector but across the entire business sector. There are some good initiatives from the government, but significantly more is needed to free up time for the truly difficult issues that county administrative boards, courts, and others have to deal with.

We also need to increase our electricity preparedness. Russia's war of aggression, where the energy supply in Ukraine has been specifically targeted and attacked on a large scale, demonstrates the importance of having self-sufficient units rather than centralized, large-scale production facilities. These are significantly easier to knock out, either directly or via the large power lines that transport the electricity from there – for example, overhead lines, which the government has now proposed that work should be done on. The Defence Preparedness Authority has previously identified decentralized electricity production as a strong defense interest. The government should listen to that.

The government is unfortunately tunnel-visioning on power production and forgetting important pieces of the puzzle such as transmission, flexibility, storage, and efficiency. These parts are crucial for us to quickly release capacity, lower electricity prices, and strengthen competitiveness in a reinforced electricity system.

I also want to say something about the electricity grid regulation. We have prices that are skyrocketing, but the government is doing nothing. The compensation one receives today drives people to expand in the most expensive possible way, because that is when one receives the most compensation. It is completely backwards. One should instead receive compensation for streamlining and better utilizing what one already has. Ultimately, one might have to expand things and encroach locally.

That is how you make the biggest difference. But it is clear: Then there will be no ribbons to cut. There will be no large-scale inaugurations. However, this is what is needed for the system.

The government is also not working with the Swedish electricity areas and is not investing in getting rid of them. As recently as last week, the paper mill in Hylte laid off 60 people. The high electricity prices in southern Sweden are a direct decisive cause.

All the things that could be done to erase the Swedish electricity price areas, the government has opposed. They say no to offshore wind. They say no to onshore wind. They raise the tax on solar power. They scrap the goal for energy efficiency. They do not invest in flexibility. They stop the expansion of the electricity grid. They say that Germany should introduce electricity price areas, but they are not prepared to act accordingly. It is a lot of empty words.

This is a huge problem for southern Sweden, which has to put up with high electricity prices. The goal must, of course, be that we get rid of the electricity zones. Then, the measures that are required must be taken. The government has actively opposed all measures that can be taken in the next 5, 10, 15, or 20 years. I was about to say that it is completely insane, but I shall not say that. It is irresponsible.

The list of what needs to be done can become very long. What I would like is for the government to look beyond its nuclear power rhetoric and act based on what is needed here and now. There is much that does not reach the media's spotlight but that still needs to be done. The government does not seem to have understood this.

Unfortunately, the bill arrives faster than one expects. Today we saw that Northvolt is applying for bankruptcy. Even though this cannot be directly attributed to the government, it is an effect of not wanting to make the investments that are needed. We will see a string of bankruptcies within the green transition, not least here at my home on the west coast. We know that companies have already moved investments to other countries because the government is not delivering what is needed.

It is irresponsible. It creates diminished competitiveness. It creates a delayed and more expensive climate transition. This is a lost parliamentary term. Do Ebba Busch and the Tidö government really want this to be the legacy? It is time to start making a real difference.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! I will begin with some background information on how the electricity market has developed.

The last time we had a right-wing government in Sweden – the Alliance government – we were import-dependent. We had an electricity deficit and a power shortage for a number of hours per year. We imported German and Polish coal power to support the electricity system.

Then we had eight years of active, progressive red-green politics where the government invested in expanding the electricity system. With the exception of the period when we really expanded the electricity system – from the middle of the 1900s – we have never seen the expansion rate that we achieved then. This led to large surpluses of sustainably produced electricity and low electricity prices. Despite Putin's invasion and the energy war, Sweden had the lowest prices even during the energy price crisis. We can thank a proactive red-green policy for the fact that we were significantly better equipped than other countries, because we had built up a large electricity surplus. Now we have an output surplus, or an electricity surplus, and export 99 percent of the time. Sweden's energy system has also been designated as the world's best by the World Energy Council.

Now we are testing the right's policy again. What is it that is happening in reality? Well, the expansion rate is grinding to a halt. It was at about 2 gigawatts per year when this government took over, but now it is down to 1 gigawatt. Next year it is expected to be down to half a gigawatt. This means a 75-percent reduction in the expansion rate for new fossil-free power production when it should be increasing radically. This is because the Tidö parties are waging a culture war against cheap and sustainably produced electricity that can be built in the near term. To top it all off, the Tidö parties are raising the electricity tax twice during the mandate period.

The Tidö parties stop the majority of onshore wind power when they get the chance. They say no to between 70 and 100 percent of what they can say no to with the municipal veto. This naturally hits southern Sweden particularly hard, which would need to bring in more cheap kilowatt-hours to push down electricity prices. For comparison, I can mention that Miljöpartiet and Centerpartiet are those who say yes to the most new wind power in the municipalities.

When it comes to offshore wind, the Tidö parties have laid a dead hand over the entire Baltic Sea. Potentially 140 terawatt-hours, which roughly corresponds to all of Sweden's current consumption, is removed in a single stroke.

The Tidö parties are worsening things for solar energy by removing the so-called 60-öre, which one now receives as a deduction when delivering electricity to the grid. They have also lowered the green deduction. They have done this in a recession. When we also have very high unemployment, they are pulling the rug out from under an industry that is truly needed and that needs to expand.

All previous support for energy efficiency has been removed. Forecasts show that we can release as much as 25 terawatt-hours as early as 2030 if we utilize the potential for profitable energy efficiency that exists. Here, the government has stopped all support and even removed the goal for energy efficiency without returning with any information at all regarding what applies.

If one improves efficiency by just 10 percent, one can lower the electricity price by as much as 50 percent, studies show. It has a large effect to remove those last hours that can drive up the electricity price.

One can think what one wants about new nuclear power, but the fact is that just the threat of entering with these gigantic subsidies for one type of power, something that is entirely built on ideology, destroys the electricity market and undermines the willingness to invest for all other types of power. It is a partial explanation for why we see that the willingness to invest in Sweden is now plummeting.

This will also be terribly expensive. The government has said that they want ten new reactors. There are a lot of studies on this from, among others, Chalmers and Blekinge Institute of Technology. IEA, the International Energy Agency, and IFN have conducted comparative analyses. One can also look at SVK's long-term market analysis, where the costs for different energy systems are compared. It amounts to 2,000–3,000 billion in additional costs for a system with ten nuclear reactors compared to a system where we expand the renewable and have controllable power technologies that balance the system.

It is, therefore, enormous amounts that this government wants to throw away. This corresponds to a cost of approximately 1,000 kronor per month per household. The government wants to finance this not only through loans, which one probably will not get back, but also through a penalty tax on electricity consumers – an Ebba Busch tax that makes electricity costs higher for Swedish consumers at a time when we want to electrify and want electricity to be cheap and competitive. It is actually quite tragic to see this development at a time when we really would need to invest in expanding the electricity system.

A completely decisive factor, in terms of how a market functions, is that those who are to invest in new power production see that there will be a demand. That is where the government's failed climate policy comes in. As recently as today, one has received stinging criticism from the OECD for its failed climate policy. Previously, one has received stinging criticism from the Fiscal Policy Council. We also see from the figures that emissions are increasing significantly. That makes those who are to invest hesitant. We see that heavy investments in the electrification of industry are being pushed into the future in Sweden. Then we lose jobs and competitiveness, in addition to failing with the climate transition.

Mr. Speaker! Instead, we want to see a rapid expansion of cheaply and sustainably produced energy. It is primarily renewable energy sources such as wind and solar that can deliver it. Then we want to complement with dispatchable power sources, energy storage, and flexibility. There, we have proposed targets for capacity, but the government actually has no answer.

I note that the Sweden Democrats have copied parts of this and are talking about gas turbines. The difference is that they want to procure fossil gas, potentially from Russia; we still import Russian gas via the gas grid. The Green Party wants to produce renewable biogas instead, partly to promote our Swedish farmers and become more independent of rogue states for our energy supply.

One of the most important issues in this debate concerns the expansion of the backbone grid and the electricity grid, which is one of the government's major failures. This failure is one of the reasons why we are not achieving the green transition and the green industrial establishments. We have a large electricity surplus, but we are not developing the electricity grids fast enough. We are also not getting enough energy into southern Sweden, especially not fast enough.

The government needs to rethink and ensure that we can use the large amounts accumulated at Svenska kraftnät to also expand the offshore power grid. There is actually no logic in using the bottleneck fees that electricity consumers have paid in to build power grids between electricity price areas and then building new power production there, perhaps at much higher costs due to longer distances, instead of building with shorter distances out into the sea and bringing in many kilowatt-hours there. This needs to be changed immediately. Therefore, I move for approval of our reservation 12.

It is also about building up an electricity preparedness. A renewable energy system with a lot of energy storage goes hand in hand with a resilient energy system. We have some proposals there, including promoting energy communities, something I think Sweden has looked at too little. By joining together at a local level and coordinating energy consumption and energy storage, one can build up a more resilient electricity system. In Ukraine, small-scale operations, solar cells, wind power, local energy storage, and batteries have been a successful concept in difficult times.

Last but not least, I would like to say something about grid tariffs, which have begun to be introduced. I have been contacted by several citizens regarding this, and I am fundamentally positive about some type of power tariff. But we really need to organize the system. The Government needs to task the Energy Markets Inspectorate with ensuring that a more uniform model is established. I think it is completely unacceptable that some grid companies have introduced a power tariff that means one only has to pay for a peak load hour. In that case, for example, those who have taken the lead and acquired an electric car are penalized. It can be power tariffs that are not linked at all to what capacity actually exists in the power grid. We can have a large surplus of electricity and have space in the power grid – yet you still have to pay a very high fee if you charge your electric car with high power when it actually doesn't matter.

This is also a very important matter for the government to address immediately: to ensure that uniform power tariffs are obtained that actually correspond to the physical load on the electricity grid.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! To achieve a stable and well-adjusted electricity market, different types of fossil-free power sources that contribute different benefits are needed. In recent years, the Swedish people have become familiar with the term "base power." Base power consists, in short, of power sources with stable and predictable energy production, such as hydropower, nuclear power, and combined heat and power, and is necessary to balance the electricity grid when the weather-dependent power sources do not deliver.

I mean that with a good intention to save the climate, one rushed forward with an energy policy transition that was completely counterproductive and had unwanted results. The climate and the Swedish households' wallets have had to feel the consequences of these misguided energy policy measures.

Stable nuclear power was dismantled and replaced by weather-dependent wind and solar power, and for that reason, Sweden has had to import fossil electricity when the wind is not blowing. One should instead have had courage and not carried out shutdowns until the alternatives were in place. One should, for example, have awaited the development of cost-effective storage possibilities.

I mean that Sweden has been thrown back several years in time when previous governments prematurely retired parts of the base power we had. Now we must build it up again. It will take time. But if we are methodical, we will get there as quickly and as securely as possible.

Now, a stable and firm course for Swedish energy policy is in place. In the coming years, we will expand and upgrade Sweden's electricity system with more common sense, balance, and decisiveness rather than empty words and symbolic political solutions.

A well-designed and balanced electricity market is crucial for the entire electricity system to function. Electricity must be able to be bought and sold at reasonable prices, and the electricity must be there when and where you need it.

The Swedish electricity market is integrated with and competes on the European electricity market, and that is how it should be. It is regulated at the EU level, but the responsibility for how it is implemented in Sweden lies with our authorities and the government.

The electricity market has for some time been in need of a review. Finally, the Electricity Market Inquiry is in full swing and will be presented in April this year.

The special investigator has been tasked with analyzing and proposing how the Swedish electricity market can increase security of supply and robustness, create long-term planning conditions, as well as provide fossil-free power sources and flexible resources with market-based compensation for the benefits they contribute. That is what we Kristdemokrater look forward to.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Larry Söder! It is nice to have the member included in this debate.

The government has advocated for overhead lines as the main alternative now that we are to expand the power grid. This simultaneously creates very large problems for our farmers. That type of large overhead power lines interferes with, for example, sowing machines and knocks out drones. It makes GPS steering of agricultural machinery impossible given that it simply interferes with those signals.

Despite this, farmers receive no compensation. They receive no compensation. No shielding measures are being implemented for this. My question is actually: How can the Christian Democrats justify proceeding with air guidance in this way and furthermore not provide any compensation whatsoever when it has such consequences for our agriculture?

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Rickard Nordin's questions are relevant. Agriculture is needed in Sweden in the times we are in now. We need farmers who can rely on the state to deliver and pay compensation for those parts.

I will honestly say that I am not well-versed in this part. I do not know what the conditions are for saying no to it at all. I think it is quite important that a farmer or someone else who gives up a part of their own land so that socially useful things can exist must also receive reasonable compensation.

It does not only concern power lines. It also concerns other parts, for example, if one installs wind turbines on the ground or runs cables to the wind turbines.

I am liable for the answer. I will gladly return to that. But I actually have the same attitude from the beginning as Rickard Nordin.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Larry Söder! I hope that is something the member also conveys to his ministerial colleagues.

There is compensation. If you put up a pole today, you get compensation where the pole itself is. But you do not get any compensation whatsoever for, for example, the production loss you suffer for what you cannot utilize under the lines. This applies to the problems that become follow-up effects and which we do not really see. It is only the visible impact that is compensated. Increased costs when it comes to, for example, production are not compensated at all.

It is something that really should be compensated. As a member of the Centre Party, I think that one should also receive compensation as a neighbor and other things, as one gets in Finland. Just when it comes to agriculture and production losses and increased costs for production, it is something that really should be compensated.

I would be pleased if Larry Söder takes it to his ministerial colleagues. So let's hope that we get to have this debate again in a year and that it is simply resolved by then.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I can only tell Rickard Nordin that I myself am a landowner. I have forest and farmland. There, they have buried the lines. That means I have much more opportunity to conduct forestry on the land that I have. I see the advantage of building downwards and that the land is used in another way than having lines in the air on it.

I take the question with me and can gladly return to it.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Larry Söder, for the speech! It is pleasant to have the member in the debate with our committee.

I became interested when the member mentioned that the irresponsible energy policy has led to the fact that one has been forced to import fossil-dependent electricity. I believe that he perhaps has in mind that nuclear power was phased out.

How large is the problem with net imports in Sweden? What is the member's view of it? How much did we import net in 2023?

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I shall answer Birger Lahti in this way. How does Birger Lahti think the citizen takes it when Birger Lahti says that we have a surplus of energy in Sweden and that it works perfectly well, while one has to pay several kronor per kilowatt-hour at home? This applies to the current situation during, for example, the evening hours. I do not think a citizen becomes particularly happy about that.

I believe that a citizen will be happy if we ensure that we have a system that functions as a base load, that is to say, that one can deliver the energy that the citizen needs at a reasonable price. I do not believe that even Birger Lahti thinks that a reasonable price is a couple, three, or four kronor.

I must say that Birger Lahti's policy made me very happy this weekend. Then I got 6 öre for every kilowatt-hour that I charged on my electric car. That is Birger Lahti's policy.

I want to ask Birger Lahti: How many of the wind farms that exist in Sweden are profitable? Birger Lahti has constantly spoken from this rostrum about how energy-efficient and cheap wind power is. I therefore want to ask Birger Lahti: Which wind farms in Sweden are profitable? As far as I know, none of them are.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! I did not receive an answer from the member, but it may happen.

I agree with the member that it is not reasonable with the price we pay, especially in price area 3 and 4. We pay several kronor per kilowatt-hour while we have a surplus in Sweden.

The problem is the pricing model. It is not that we would have a need for imports. In 2023, I believe we imported a net of only 140 hours on an annual basis. The problem does not lie there. The problem lies in the pricing model that we have in Sweden.

We export more than any other country, but at the same time, we import the price level from the continent. I am a bit puzzled that the Christian Democrats do not see the problem that we import the price picture from the continent from their failures.

Regarding wind power, I want to assert that those who signed long-term agreements in the same period as the war in Ukraine are doing poorly. They have had to purchase more expensive electricity to fulfill long-term agreements.

But there are other wind power projects out in the country. I visited Markbygden. There are some there where the Chinese made long-term contracts, and those are not doing so well. But the others are making a profit. Otherwise, we would not export 33 terawatt-hours a year and get paid for it.

They are running with a surplus. I do not know where the member gets such indications that every single wind turbine in Sweden would run at a deficit. That is not true.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I can answer Birger Lahti's question about why electricity area 3 and 4 have high prices. It is because Birger Lahti's party has been involved in shutting down nuclear power, for example from the power plant that is located quite close to my home, Ringhals.

We have high electricity prices precisely because nuclear power has been phased out. I am very surprised that one does not see that development. And then one thinks that one can solve this through something that only works when the sun is out and when the wind is blowing!

No, we need base power in Sweden, and if you come from northern Sweden, you know what base power is about. It is hydropower that exists there, very much hydropower! But Birger Lahtis party wants to remove the base power as well, that is to say small-scale hydropower. It is incredibly strange if one now wants to protect the Swedish cost for electricity. In that case, one should protect both small-scale hydropower and the hydropower that exists in the north. But instead, one wants to shut down small-scale hydropower, and one shuts down nuclear power, i.e., the base power we have in Sweden. It is that which can make it so that companies can be operated and developed and we can have more residents in Sweden.

Market issues

I cannot understand how one can come to the conclusion that it is the electricity areas that are the golden egg to solve this problem with. There must be other solutions. One sees the future in history; we see how the previous government handled this. Now we have a new government, which has other solutions.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on March 13.)

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