A capacity mechanism for the electricity market

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we have gathered in the chamber to debate the Committee on Industry's report NU11 A capacity mechanism for the electricity market. I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal.

Mr. Speaker! In an electricity system, the supply of electricity must be balanced so that at any given time it is equal to the demand, that is to say, production must at all times correspond to the need for the consumption of electricity. There must be a power balance. However, situations can arise where there is an imbalance and where available balancing resources on the electricity market are insufficient. It is a situation that has become increasingly common in Sweden as weather-dependent power has gained a larger share in the electricity system.

In Sweden, since the 2000s, we have had a so-called reserve capacity consisting of a number of fast-start production facilities that can be activated when there is a risk of a power shortage in the system. Here in Sweden, it is the business entity Svenska kraftnät that is responsible for the strategic reserve and which shall ensure that there are resources available to meet the power system's needs during peaks in demand or deficits in production.

The Act on Reserve Capacity was introduced at the beginning of the 2000s and was intended as a transitional solution pending a functioning market-based model. It was assessed at that time that a weak power balance entailed a risk of power shortages in extreme situations. But since the need for resources outside the normal market has not disappeared, the Act's period of validity has been extended on three occasions, most recently to March 15 this year, 2025.

As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the need for a reserve capacity has not decreased, but rather increased as more and more weather-dependent power has entered the Swedish electricity system.

In the proposition, the government presents the assessment that a capacity mechanism for the electricity market in Sweden is therefore required in the future even after March 15 when the current power reserve act expires. The new law is proposed to enter into force on March 16, 2025. It also presents how the strategic reserve shall be financed, namely through fees levied on balance responsible actors and based on electricity consumption. This means that those who use the system also contribute to maintaining its stability.

Mr. Speaker! Since the change of power two years ago, we in the Sweden Democrats, together with the governing parties, have worked feverishly to get Sweden in order again. Areas such as safety, security, competitiveness, and welfare are now in focus. Instead of utopian dreams, reality guides the compass. A large and completely decisive area for Swedish competitiveness and welfare is the energy sector, which we have debated many times here in the chamber. Even though two years is a short time in these contexts, we have clearly charted out a new direction for Swedish energy policy - or should I perhaps call it new-old. We are now working more purposefully to get back a robust, reliable, affordable, and fossil-free energy mix again.

The need for predictable base load is great. Therefore, we have, among other things, removed legal obstacles for new nuclear power, and we are currently reviewing a suitable financing model to create the possibility of once again becoming a successful nuclear power nation.

The ever-increasing share of weather-dependent power, especially wind power, in the system has created a situation where we oscillate between electricity surpluses and power shortages, between exporting electricity at dumped prices and sky-high domestic prices for companies and households. It is a situation that is harmful in every way and is not sustainable for an efficient electricity system and global competitiveness.

Mr. Speaker! The Government's proposal to reintroduce and develop the strategic reserve is not only a step in the right direction, but it is an absolute necessity to manage the balancing of the now increasingly weather-dependent and unstable power grid. Svenska kraftnät is hereby given continued mandate and responsibility to maintain balance in the system and prevent power shortages in critical situations.

Mr. Speaker! It takes time to build up an efficient and reliable power system again, but it is moving forward slowly. Among the first things we did when we gained government influence was precisely to task Svenska kraftnät with expanding the power reserve. This has now resulted in an agreement with the combined heat and power plant Öresundsverket in Malmö. In accordance with our directives, Svenska kraftnät has entered into a strategic agreement with Öresundsverket, which in practice means a power addition of 448 megawatts of electricity. It is an important step in the right direction to secure the electricity supply in southern Sweden and the operation in the Malmö area. A well-managed and modernized facility will now avoid being dismantled and shipped to Asia. Instead, it can be of great use in a vulnerable area.

Mr. Speaker! It is time to leave failed symbolic politics behind us. Sweden needs an energy policy based on common sense and long-term goals, a policy that puts Swedish industry, households, and the environment first. We Sverigedemokrater will continue to work so that Sweden can regain one of the world's most reliable, fossil-free, and affordable energy systems.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! I must ask a question to Jessica Stegrud. The member has often spoken untruths from the rostrum, and she has claimed that the need for the power reserve has increased. When has Sweden used the power reserve for Swedish needs?

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is a bit strange to begin an exchange of remarks by claiming that I have stood in the speaker's chair and uttered falsehoods. You have to be more specific than that.

When has Sweden used our need for power reserve? Was that the question, member? I am a bit confused, but I will answer that question.

Regarding the matter, it is naturally necessary to have a power reserve for one's own needs. The goal is not to have to use it all the time. What I can state is that, for example, Karlshamnsverket, which constitutes a part of the power reserve, has several times had to go into emergency status and has more times than ever in recent years had to go on standby to enter and balance the grid. That is as much as I know, and I hope that was an answer to the question.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Jessica Stegrud for an attempt at an answer.

The reason I began by asserting that the member usually resorts to falsehoods is that I must take the opportunity to state that the member has claimed that my party leader has said that cables should be cut. The member refers to the fact that it can be googled. I have tried but have not found the statement. I therefore assert that the member has resorted to falsehoods.

Then I move to the question I asked. When have we used the reserve capacity for Sweden's needs? I can help the member towards an answer.

The year 2013 was the last time we used the power reserve. It has been eleven years. We have had the power reserve in standby mode for Poland and Germany, but for Sweden's part, we have not used it.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The statement from the leader of the Left Party was made in an interview – it might not be entirely easy to Google, but I remember it as clearly as if it were yesterday. I have said in previous debates that it is obviously no longer the Left Party's policy, but that was what was said initially – especially when the period with the skyrocketing prices began. I remember that clearly.

I do not quite know what Birger Lahti wants to have said. Does Birger Lahti mean that we should not have any reserve capacity at all? Is that the final point? I do not understand.

It is common knowledge that we have the EU's worst balance of production. It is we who have it. I know what the situation looks like in southern Sweden. And just as I mentioned in my speech, we are incredibly happy that Öresundsverket will soon be operational. It can, above all, function as balancing power but can also stabilize the grid as a whole. It is something that is increasingly needed.

With the policy that Vänsterpartiet is pursuing, they want to shut down all nuclear power within 15 years and invest in weather-dependent wind power. Talk about the fact that power reserves will then be needed. And naturally, there is no plan for how that is going to happen.

When it comes to the hydrogen plans and the ideas that are largely desk products, there are so many problems that my response time is not sufficient. But it is still interesting to note.

A reserve capacity is exactly that, a reserve that should be able to step in and stabilize the power grid when needed. It is needed to the highest degree. That is also why we are standing here in the chamber today. Furthermore, all parties agree that this capacity mechanism needs to be extended until at least the beginning of the 30s. We would hardly agree on that if the need did not exist. I therefore think the question is a bit strange, Birger Lahti.

I will try to get the statement from Birger Lahti's party leader, so that we can conclude it once and for all.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! As has been stated earlier, the committee report we are debating is A capacity mechanism for the electricity market.

The new law requires balance responsible parties to pay a fee to Affärsverket svenska kraftnät to cover the agency's costs according to such agreements as the agency enters into so that there is a capacity mechanism. In the bill, the government presents the assessment that there should be a capacity mechanism for the electricity market in Sweden even after March 15, 2025, when the current power reserve expires. In this part, we agree with the government.

That the composition of the strategic reserve should be as climate- and environmentally friendly as possible I see as a matter of course. When fossil fuel-fired power plants are put into operation to ensure the Swedish power balance, it must, in my opinion, naturally be regarded as a failure. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 1 in the report, Mr. Speaker.

I admit that I have no better proposal for how the financing should proceed, and I agree with the government that we should have an emergency reserve on standby. But as I said in the exchange with Sverigedemokraterna, we have not needed to use it for our own use in eleven years. That we have activated it once to save Poland's energy supply is another matter.

When it comes to socially important functions such as electricity distribution, balancing responsibility, and its production, I am convinced that society should have more responsibility and ownership. The market is absolutely a good servant in many cases. But when we clear-cut areas in the forest to give the regrowth the best possible conditions, we used to say: Fire is an excellent servant but a terrible and dangerous master if it is allowed to rage freely. It is somewhat the same regarding the market in some areas.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Birger Lahti!

We usually meet here in the speaking chairs and exchange certain questions that we feel we have not received answers to. My constant question to Vänsterpartiet is how this matter of the decommissioning of nuclear power within just 15 years is going to happen. What type of power shall take its place? How is it going to happen?

I would very much like to hear the thoughts regarding hydrogen specifically, which I have understood that Vänsterpartiet places great confidence in.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! Regarding the capacity mechanism for the electricity market, which we are debating today, I, as I said in my speech, am convinced that we need it. It will certainly be needed even after 2030. But Vänsterpartiet and I do not believe that we would not need the reserve capacity if we expand nuclear power.

Regarding hydrogen, I believe that it may also have its value in an energy reserve in the future.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the indirect correction. The debate is about a capacity mechanism for the electricity market, but everything is interconnected. It is clear that we have needed a capacity mechanism despite having had nuclear power. But the fact is that the need for power reserves increases enormously with further shutdowns of planned large-scale base load. I believe that even the Left Party can see that connection.

That is why I often come in on hydrogen. It is portrayed as some kind of savior for the electricity system, both as a storage possibility and as a utopian green base load, as it is often called, which is highly unreasonable. But we rarely get answers on how it is to be done and what the future need actually becomes if we shut down all nuclear power, as Vänsterpartiet wants to do. In that case, the power reserves we have today will absolutely not suffice. That is my firm conviction, Mr. Speaker.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question from the member.

I can agree that we should not shut down functioning nuclear power as long as we do not have any other power sources to compensate. But our plan and vision is that we should not need it after 2040 or 2045. That I stand by. But if it turns out that we do not have the other pieces in place, we must, of course, reconsider our decision.

Regarding technological development, if one compares nuclear power with other renewable resources such as hydrogen storage, it can be seen that these have advanced enormously more. Nuclear power has stagnated with its old technology for 50 years.

The future is not old technology with nuclear power, where the storage of spent nuclear fuel is not fixed yet. It doesn't exist anywhere in the world. Finland is the first to build it. Therefore, I still maintain that the future is probably something other than old technology and dangerous nuclear power as part of the solution.

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal for a government bill. It concerns a new law on balance transfer which is to enter into force from March 16.

An electricity system requires that the supply of electricity corresponds to the demand. The Act on Power Reserve was introduced as a temporary solution in the early 2000s, and it will now cease to apply on March 15, 2025. The proposal means that it will be replaced with a new Act on Balance Transfer from March 16.

It is important that there is a capacity mechanism that functions precisely when electricity is insufficient. Today, we have a critical day again. It is essentially calm, and the electricity price here in the Stockholm region is up to 4 kronor per kilowatt. The function of the capacity mechanism is to handle situations where ordinary market solutions are insufficient to maintain the balance between production and consumption of electricity.

The power shortage is particularly large in electricity area 3 and 4 at certain times, especially after the shutdown of six nuclear reactors.

The financing shall be carried out through fees from those responsible for the balance. The fees shall be based on electricity consumption at starting points during periods of high load.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, I want to say that I look forward to us building new reactors to achieve order and a robust electricity system. This primarily concerns Ringhals.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Kjell Jansson for the speech and the Government for the bill.

I have a rather simple question. The government has presented a proposal for an energy policy goal - or an electricity policy goal, perhaps one should say - of 100 percent fossil-free. Despite that, one now has a capacity reserve that is fossil-based. It would have worked perfectly well to set requirements for fossil-free status in the capacity reserve. For example, Karlshamnsverket has been run on bio-oil, so it is entirely possible. If one now has a goal of fossil-free status, why does one not set those requirements when the state procures the reserve?

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Nordin for the question. It is not possible to have this completely fossil-free as long as we have wind power. It is difficult to have any replacement. We have hydropower, which replaces the main part when it is not blowing. But in southern Sweden, as we know, we have very little hydropower. There, it is Karlshamnsverket and Öresundsverket that supplement with energy. It is nothing strange.

It takes time to build new nuclear power. The Centre Party bears a large part of the responsibility for the decommissioning of reactors. Actually, the responsibility lies more with Member of Parliament Nordin than with the undersigned.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! This is not a nuclear power debate. I do not intend to enter into that discussion, because it is mostly nonsense.

My question was about the strategic reserve and why it is not made fossil-free. It has nothing to do with wind power. Öresundsverket runs on gas. There is biogas. They are exactly the same molecules, but with a biological origin. Karlshamnsverket runs on oil. It has even been test-run on bio-oil, that is to say, renewable resources.

Why does the government not demand fossil-free status, even though it is clearly physically possible? Both plants could perfectly well run on that. One can also, of course, have other solutions and other plants. This has nothing to do with either wind power, decommissioned nuclear power, or for that matter what the Center Party has done in this chamber regarding the energy system.

My question is: If the government has set a goal of 100 percent fossil-free, why is there not even an attempt to live up to it, despite the physical conditions being present?

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Member Nordin is asking technical questions. It may be difficult for me to account for the answers. It is difficult for me as a member to speak about what the reserves we have - Karlshamnsverket and Öresundsverket - shall be powered by. But I know that Member Nordin is very much into technical solutions in the discussions. It is a bit remarkable, I think. We have expertise that handles this. It is not we in the Riksdag who do it. We set frameworks for things and enact laws. Then the expertise handles the how.

It is simply a matter of stating that we have too little nuclear power in southern Sweden. That means we must have this law on reserve capacity, which fills in when there is a power shortage. Then we have the plants we have. These are the plants that exist right now.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Capacity mechanism, strategic reserve – these are actually fine words for a substantial backup. It is wise to have such a thing in an electricity system to cover when other things go wrong. We know that it may be needed if we have offshore cables that fail, nuclear power plants that undergo rapid shutdowns, and other things. It is simply a relatively cheap insurance against experiencing shortages in the grid. We have had such an insurance for a long time, and that is good. It is good that the government now sees that it will also be needed in the future. On that point, we are in complete agreement.

It is also important in this context to point out how often this capacity reserve has been activated. It has occurred only once in the last ten years. At that time, it was used for five hours at the request of Poland. That the strategic reserve is used so little shows that we have a strong electricity system. It actually ranks at the top in the world, regardless of what the Tidögänget says. This is very clear. It also contradicts the things that Jessica Stegrud said earlier in this debate about the needs having increased. They have not increased at all. We have not used this capacity reserve in a decade, except when Poland requested it; in that case, it is good that we can share resources with them.

There is also a clear potential for improvement for the strategic reserve. It is fossil-based, as you heard in a previous exchange, despite the government having set a goal for the electricity system of 100 percent fossil-free. It would work perfectly well to instead run these plants on renewable resources – or fossil-free, if one wants to call it that.

This is not, as we heard earlier, about politics deciding which fuel is used, but it is about setting up frameworks – exactly what the Moderaterna requested. When the state procures power, one can choose to procure it fossilly or fossil-free. If there is something that is a framework, it is to say that it should be fossil-free. Which plants will be operated, which fuels they will be and how this will be formulated is then up to the companies to decide. That is not something I, as a politician, do.

This seems to be mostly poor excuses from the government's side. There is simply no reason to run on fossil fuels. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 1 in the report.

It is also surprising that the government, which is eager to talk about long-term perspective, does not state that this strategic reserve shall apply for a foreseeable period. One gets a bit of the feeling that the government thinks that perhaps it wouldn't be so bad with a capacity market actually, despite unambiguous research showing that it would be expensive, unsuitable, and unnecessary to introduce such a thing in Sweden, not least considering that we have so much hydropower which would make it expensive. Why does the government not reject this? The cheapest solution is simply a strategic reserve. In that case, it is better to state that it will apply. In that way, one creates long-term perspective but also opportunities for those who want to invest in such a reserve and participate in the procurement.

Finally, one does not want to let all technicians get the chance to compete on equal terms. If we now say again that frames are to be set up, it is probably wise to give all technicians the opportunity instead of selecting which technicians should get the chance. Just as production can be increased, one can imagine that consumers are prepared to reduce their consumption in exchange for payment. The outcome will be the same: that supply and demand meet during the time that is needed. Why does the government not let them get the chance? The opportunity has existed previously, so demonstrably this has worked.

Mr. Speaker! One does not need to be particularly conspiratorial to see that the government's energy policy is mostly a veneer. The goal of fossil-free status, which they often boast about and say they have adopted, they are not even prepared to live up to when it comes to what they themselves can influence in the form of the strategic reserve. Working cost-effectively does not seem to be a priority either, given that not everyone gets the chance. Instead, they are keeping the door open for the fossil. In 2025, they are prepared to procure fossil power. It is madness. Furthermore, they are keeping the door open for a capacity market which, in addition to the hundreds of billions already earmarked in subsidies for nuclear power, would make it possible to spend even more money on a one-sided power source.

Mr. Speaker! I say to the government: You can do better! At least try to live up to your own goals! Come back with new proposals!

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! In May last year, 2024, the Riksdag decided on the energy policy direction bill. It signified a shift in Swedish energy policy and that for the first time in several decades we have both a planning goal and a security of supply goal. As is known in this chamber, the planning goal means that Sweden should plan to be able to meet an electricity demand of at least 300 terawatt-hours by the year 2045.

A little more than half of the parliamentary term has passed. In the energy area, the government has made more than 60 decisions on measures that are judged to strengthen the energy supply as early as around 2030.

An example of this is Kraftlyftet, an initiative to secure power where it is needed. Decisions on pilot projects with gas turbines in Västra Götaland have been made, and Öresundsverket and its planned power are maintained and restarted in March. Nuclear power has received better conditions here and now, and hydropower - perhaps still the finest thing we have - shall receive better conditions.

We establish economic incentives for municipalities that wish to accept wind power establishments. Connection queues are streamlined and permit processes are improved. Our electricity market is affected to the highest degree by decisions made by our neighboring countries, and the Electricity Market Investigation, which was commissioned in January 2024, aims to achieve a better electricity market for Sweden. The Government also uses its mandate to exert pressure on other EU countries, as in the dialogue with Germany.

Mr. Speaker! More than 60 measures have been taken, and today we decide on a capacity mechanism for the electricity market. Sweden already had a capacity mechanism in the form of a strategic reserve before the EU's so-called electricity market regulation was adopted. The Act on Power Reserve was introduced in the early 2000s due to the then weak power balance and the risk of power shortages that were judged could arise in extreme situations.

Weak power balance arose not least due to the decommissioning of Barsebäck. It should have been clear already in the early 2000s what consequences the decommissioning of functioning base load could have for the power system as a whole, but nevertheless, the decommissioning of more nuclear reactors continued. Of twelve reactors, we have six remaining today. Despite large-scale investments in more electricity production, the power problem persists in Sweden because the weather-dependent power sources have been prioritized over the dispatchable power sources.

Mr. Speaker! The Act on Reserve Capacity will soon cease to apply. The Government assesses that there needs to be a capacity mechanism for the electricity market in Sweden even after March 15, 2025, and that balance responsible parties shall pay a fee to Svenska kraftnät to cover their costs for the purpose. Otherwise, the intention is to regulate the new capacity mechanism at the ordinance level to the greatest extent possible. The Committee proposes that the Riksdag adopts the Government's proposal for an Act on the financing of a capacity mechanism for the electricity market.

The government is now creating the foundation for the future electricity system. Its growth will take time. A strategic power reserve is crucial, not least from a preparedness perspective, so that the power balance can be maintained even if the system is subjected to stress and pressure. 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)

Mr. Speaker! Since I did not receive any answer in the previous exchange of remarks as to why the government continues with a fossil capacity mechanism when there is an opportunity to procure it fossil-free – not least considering the government's own target of 100 percent fossil-free – I thought I would pose the same question to Camilla Brodin.

This is perhaps the only opportunity the state has to have a direct influence on the electricity system. Otherwise, it is the emissions trading that determines pricing, and market actors get to decide what they use. This has resulted in us in Sweden having a very clean electricity system from a carbon perspective.

But when the state, for once, has the opportunity to choose, why does it not choose fossil-free when it can?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Rickard Nordin, for the question! I understand that the Center Party wants to ask it because they are not in power and do not have the holistic perspective.

Of course, the government shall work to ensure that the capacity mechanism can be completely fossil-free in the future. But in the situation we are in right now, we must ensure that we have an effective reserve that we can rely on. That is because we have an electricity system that is not where we would like it to be. We need to ensure that hospitals and others who need an emergency reserve can always rely on electricity being there when they need it. That is not the situation we are in right now. In the long run, we absolutely want to achieve fossil-free status, but that is not where we are in the current situation.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is precisely this that is so difficult to understand. The plants that have been procured and the plants that would be possible to procure can be run fossil-free. Fossil gas is identical to biogas, and biogas exists, so it is entirely possible to use it to run the plants.

The plant that has been used the most, the Karlshamn plant, runs on fossil oil. It has, however, been successfully test-run on bio-oil. There are therefore also fossil-free resources available here if one chooses to procure it. Otherwise, of course, one will not do so.

So, it is not the case that any hospitals will be left without electricity because requirements are placed on fossil-free status, and no one else will be left without electricity either. It is technically possible. It has been tested in the facilities. It is physically possible. All parameters are maintained. No one will be left without anything. But the government still chooses not to set requirements in this case, despite having said that we are to be fossil-free.

My question remains: Why does one choose not to set these requirements despite it being fully possible?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I understand why the member continues to nag about this. It seems to be the only thing they care about. One does not look at what the best-before dates are on the bio-oils and so on. One wants it to be as renewable as possible, and one has a belief that it will always work. I would not want to be the one standing there and looking people in the eye when the electricity does not reach all the way.

When it comes to what should be the last lifeline, it must be up to the companies themselves to decide. Just as the member says, the government has an opportunity to set requirements, but in the situation we are in now, we are putting people's well-being first. We do not want to have to stand there and say: Oops, that wasn't enough!

This government takes its responsibility and its mandate with the utmost seriousness when it comes to ensuring that there is electricity when it is needed. I hope that we will be able to see each other in this chamber and debate other issues as well. But the energy issue in Sweden is a preparedness issue, and in that, we do not gamble, but we take it very seriously.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We all agree that it continues to be wise to have a strategic reserve. As was said earlier, it is a bit like an insurance, a last lifeline and a backup for the electricity system. However, there is an important dividing line here.

It is bizarre that we have a government that has made such a big deal out of changing the goal for the electricity system from renewable to fossil-free, but the first thing the government does when faced with a choice between fossil and fossil-free is to choose the fossil. Not least, several government representatives have made a big deal out of the fact that Karlshamnsverket is run on oil. Here, one has the political choice to procure renewable – or fossil-free, if you prefer; there is no difference in this case – or fossil oil for the strategic reserve. In that case, the government chooses the fossil. It is actually completely incomprehensible!

Then, of course, one must take technical considerations into account. One could have transitional rules. One could ensure that additional test runs are conducted to ensure that it works. But as was mentioned earlier, Karlshamn plant has been test-run on bio-oil. It is essentially identical to fossil oil. As regards gas-fired plants, it is exactly the same molecules that one burns. There is, therefore, basically no technical difference at all – if one wants to procure gas-fired power plants in the strategic reserve that are powered by renewables. There are therefore no sensible arguments for procuring the fossil one here, rather this is just a pure inconsistency from the government.

Since then, it has been attempted to argue that this would be needed because a lot of renewables entered the system. This was supposedly needed as a reserve for unforeseen events of all kinds. It could be rapid shutdowns in nuclear power and so on. But the fact is that the power reserve has never had to be activated since 2013 for the Swedish electricity system, and it was considered wise to have that reserve even when we had twelve reactors. These arguments are, therefore, just pure nonsense.

There is a very big problem ahead with the fact that one does not dare to take a stand against the fossil. I shall quote what Svenska kraftnät wrote in its investigation regarding a long-term capacity mechanism. If fossil gas-fired power plants are allowed to participate in the procurement, it could, according to the report, mean incentives for new investments in capital-intensive and long-lived facilities with high climate impact. It is further stated that since the Swedish electricity system is largely free from fossil-based production, new investments in such production would move Sweden in the wrong direction, towards a system with more climate impact. Therefore, Svenska kraftnät considers that the government should consider whether it is justified to set stricter requirements regarding carbon emissions than the EU's minimum requirements.

Even Svenska kraftnät, which actually is responsible for the power reserve, recommends that the government procure fossil-free. Therefore, I do not think it holds up to refer to any expert opinions. It is precisely the opposite. Our expert agency or our state-owned enterprise here recommends that one should procure fossil-free so that we do not lock ourselves into a fossil-dependent electricity system or at least a fossil-dependent power reserve.

Then this is connected with energy and power. We need to bring in more energy, and we need to bring in more power. But even here, the government is failing miserably. Since this government took over, the expansion rate of fossil-free power has been halved up to now. We have gone from an expansion rate of two gigawatts per year to one gigawatt per year under this government, and the forecast is that it will fall further, to half a gigawatt, in two years. The talk about accelerating the expansion of fossil-free power is just talk. In reality, the forecast is that the expansion rate decreases by 75 percent during this mandate period. It is a catastrophe considering the need for more fossil-free electricity, primarily in the near term but also in the long term.

This has many explanations, but we know that the Tidö parties block between 70 and 100 percent of wind power when they have the opportunity in the municipalities through the municipal veto. They have opposed solar power by lowering the green deduction and removing the so-called 60-öre. They have stopped almost all expansion of offshore wind power. They first did this in the entire Baltic Sea by laying a dead hand over this instead of trying to find collaborative solutions between the defense and energy interests. Then, on the afternoon of Lucia, they laid a dead hand over the remaining offshore wind power for the next ten years through proposals that are really bad regarding changing the system for offshore wind power. There is, in itself, a wise thought in this, but due to the poor implementation, there is a great risk that it delays the expansion of offshore wind power by ten years.

Since then, we have had an investigation into the financing of nuclear power. One can think what one wants about it, but it has met harsh criticism even among nuclear power advocates. If one goes so clearly in with large subsidies for a single type of power, other investors turn a deaf ear when it comes to investing in other power, because it is not possible to compete with such a subsidized production. Even nuclear power advocates have criticized this model and pointed out that it will lead to a power shortage in the next 20 years if one does not get the rest of the energy production moving.

It takes a long time to expand nuclear power, which is the government's unilateral focus. They focus on that instead of focusing broadly, which is the least one should be able to demand given how it sounds in the rhetoric. To make matters worse, the total emissions will be 220 million tons higher due to the time it takes to get nuclear power in place – compared to expanding renewables, which can be built quickly and are cheap.

Then we come back to the issue of power, Madam Speaker. Even here, one fails. The power reserve is a way to ensure power as a backup, but it is only intended to be used in extreme emergencies and has actually not needed to be used since 2013.

The Christian Democrats mentioned that there is a small, tentative attempt to generate more power in the so-called power step, but when I had an interpellation debate with the Minister for Energy a few weeks ago, there was absolutely no clue in response as to how much power one actually gets from that investment. There should reasonably be some kind of thought or analysis from the government, because they have made a big deal out of talking about power, but they have absolutely no clue how this is going to happen. They have no plan and no goal.

The majority of heavy actors have mentioned that we would need approximately ten gigawatts of dispatchable power somewhere between 2030 and 2035. But the government has absolutely not made any analysis of this, and therefore one gets no guidance on it. Miljöpartiet has proposed that we should set a goal of ten gigawatts of dispatchable power and flexibility by 2030. There are many technologies that can contribute to that: increased capacity in hydropower, increased capacity in combined heat and power, different types of energy storage - pumped storage, hydrogen and heat storage - and the use of flexibility. But it is an incredibly weak contribution from the government when it comes to precisely the capacity issue.

Madam Speaker! I believe that a significant tightening of the government's energy policy overall is needed. One could have started by ensuring that the power reserve is procured in a fossil-free manner to at least attempt to reach its own goals for a fossil-free electricity system.

Madam Speaker! I move for the approval of reservation 2. We naturally stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for the approval of only one of them.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Linus Lakso, for the speech!

I find it astonishing to hear an environmentalist party speak about the Swedish energy system and all the weaknesses that the government presents in this area. It is, to say the least, bold.

The extension of the capacity mechanism that we are debating here today is ultimately an effect of green-party politics - a green-party politics that has shut down well-functioning, life-extended, and well-invested planned nuclear power. These are green-party decisions.

The more we shut down base load power, the more of these reserve capacities we will need, and therefore it is incredibly stomach-turning to hear Miljöpartiet stand and complain about the government's policy. We and the government are doing everything together to get a stable base load and secure electricity production running again, there is no doubt about that, and we need the extension of the capacity mechanism precisely because we have so much weather-dependent power in the mix.

I heard briefly that the member spoke about the fact that we need much more electricity. The member also said, Madam Speaker, that the power shortage was a problem, but I also understand that we have an electricity deficit.

The board members usually boast that we have an electricity surplus and that we export more than ever, and that is precisely the problem: We have a situation with electricity surpluses in certain periods, interspersed with power shortages. That is the problem.

I would therefore like to turn back the questions that often come from the member, and it is precisely how Miljöpartiet is to get the issue of a stable and robust electricity system in the future in order.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thought it sounded a bit confused from the member. I have really not claimed that we have an electricity shortage, but it is exactly as the member states.

I usually mention as an example that when the right ruled last, that is when the current energy minister's party was last involved, we had an electricity deficit on an annual basis in Sweden and were dependent on importing German and Polish coal power. This applied for several years while the Alliance ruled. After eight years with a red-green government, when we handed over government power, we had the largest electricity surplus in the EU. We therefore have a large surplus of electricity thanks to the Green Party's policy.

I think it is good that we are discussing the issue of power capacity, because the Green Party is, as far as I know, the only party that has actually set a concrete goal of producing more controllable power. The government has no goal and no analysis regarding this. Or can Jessica Stegrud answer what the government basis's analysis is of how much power is needed and where it should come from by 2040? It is, therefore, the Tidö parties that have questions to answer.

Speaking of the power reserve, I can only state that Stegrud's claim fails on its own logic. The power reserve also existed during the time we had twelve reactors, and at that time we had a power shortage. That logic simply does not hold up if one looks at the facts.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! There may have been some confusion when I ran into the chamber. I may not have said it, but what I meant, and there we agree, was that we now have an electricity surplus in periods and it is boasted that we export more than ever. At the same time, we have the EU's worst power balance, which is a clear sign of a market in imbalance. That is the point.

It is environmentalist politics that has led to this. Political decisions have shut down six nuclear reactors. More wind has been built, 13,000 megawatts over the last ten years if I remember correctly. We have received a more weather-dependent and thus uncertain energy mix, which is the problem, and then the need for capacity mechanisms and power reserves increases.

Despite the previous government having stated they wanted to shut down nuclear power and bring in more weather-dependent power into the energy mix, they did not have the sense, Madam Speaker, to ensure that Svenska kraftnät procured sufficient reserve capacity. One of the first things we did when we gained influence was to give Svenska kraftnät the mandate to ensure a better reserve capacity, which I also stated in my speech. That is also why Öresundsverket is now phasing out so slowly on the grid, which is incredibly important.

I think it is irresponsible to stand here and talk about presented solutions. We have been early with proposals regarding gas turbines, and I have noted that even Miljöpartiet has launched this. It is about incredibly good power to increase transmission capacity and to have a good reserve capacity while waiting for the long-term logical solution, which is large-scale planned fossil-free nuclear power – that which has served us so well and will serve us well in the future as well.

A capacity mechanism for the electricity market

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! I want to start by correcting Stegrud. We absolutely do not have the EU's worst power balance. It falls on its own absurdity if one understands the laws of physics, because if we have a large surplus of electricity and export it during 99 percent of the year's hours, one also has a surplus in power. I believe therefore that Jessica Stegrud needs to read up a bit on the laws of physics.

What Stegrud is probably referring to is that we have a production deficit in SE4 but not a power deficit, and to understand the difference, one must understand the laws of physics. It is not a power deficit because we have lines that export electricity – approximately six gigawatts if I remember correctly – to SE4 which maintains the balance.

With that said, it would definitely be welcome to have more production in SE4, which is something that, among others, Miljöpartiet is pushing for. We want to ensure that we connect more offshore wind power to SE4 in the near future. That would press down electricity prices significantly. We also need to expand onshore wind power, but there, above all SD but also the rest of the Tidö parties, put a stop to it with the municipal veto.

There is no question that we need more power; I have advocated for that for a long time. It is clear that when one has more weather-dependent power, one also needs more dispatchable power. In that regard, we agree in some parts.

We also agree that gas turbines are a very good complement. The big difference is that the Tidö government wants to procure fossil resources, while the Green Party proposes that we procure renewable resources that can be produced, for example, by Swedish farmers in the form of biogas, which would be a great win-win for the Swedish business sector.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 12.)

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