A more purposeful examination of nuclear facilities

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! The time has come to debate the Committee on Industry's report 19, A more purposeful examination of nuclear facilities, and I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposed decision.

What does this mean then, Madam Speaker? In my capacity as the first speaker, I intended to try to clarify this for the audience before a potentially more spirited debate on energy policy in a slightly broader sense will likely take place. With this afternoon's decision here in the chamber, we enable a new process, where the government, following an application, may approve a nuclear facility.

Such an approval replaces the permissibility assessment that the government would otherwise be required to perform according to Chapter 17 of the Environmental Code. This approval for the government concerns a nuclear facility if it has previously adopted a plan for nuclear facilities that covers the area and the facilities intended by the application.

Through the plan, the government examines whether it is compatible with the management rules in the Environmental Code to construct a certain type of nuclear power facility within the area that the plan concerns. Furthermore, a plan may only be adopted if someone has applied for the government's approval and the municipality or municipalities located within the area concerned have approved the application.

It will, however, also continue to be possible with the current procedure of permit review according to the Environmental Code for those who do not wish to use this new track. Very, very simplified, Madam Speaker: We are now simply enabling a fast track when a new nuclear facility is to be constructed, while simultaneously maintaining the more traditional process.

In the proposal and the referral, amendments are also proposed regarding the inspection of nuclear facilities according to the Act on Nuclear Activities. This means that a possibility to obtain a preliminary decision is now being introduced. Everything aims to facilitate and reduce the costs linked to the nuclear power program that is currently underway.

Madam Speaker! Now I have explained the meaning of what we are to debate. My colleagues in the committee can then avoid repeating exactly what the report contains.

But if one wants to take a somewhat broader view, I can say that this is in a direct red line with the ongoing work that the Tidö parties have devoted themselves to from day one. It is, therefore, about the fact that we inherited an energy system – specifically an electricity system – that had become neglected over time. It would have been the world's best and emission-neutral. Then, the Swedish electricity system was neglected. It was about copious new investments in the electricity grid as a consequence of the establishment of weather-dependent power all around Sweden.

Then the people chose politicians who simply wanted to redo and do it right. Since then, we have removed the legal restrictions that have existed in Sweden for the establishment of new nuclear power. We have ensured state support and risk-sharing in new nuclear power projects. We have addressed both issues regarding final disposal and issues regarding the coastal strips in order to facilitate the new establishment of nuclear power in Sweden on all fronts. It is about driving forward the ambition that we should also be able to leave behind an electricity system characterized by security of supply and low electricity prices for future generations.

This is just one of the many products in the area that we have managed to deliver during these years. Furthermore, we are among the Tidö parties in agreement on the analysis and the needs linked to the energy policy.

I am grateful that during the mandate period there has been a shift from several of the opposition parties. They have, with sometimes small steps and sometimes large strides, moved closer to the politics that we pursue. There is today a greater consensus in the energy policy area than there has been for a very, very long time. 80 percent in this chamber have, for example, voted yes to a state commitment regarding new nuclear power expansion in Sweden. I view that positively.

Even though the opposition parties have many differences within energy policy, which is notably visible in the very varying appropriations to budget area 21 Energy, they have reached a consensus in this report by means of a joint reservation to reject the Tidö parties' proposition. They simply oppose that we should facilitate and create fast-tracks for the new establishment of nuclear power.

Despite the fact that all parties regularly speak about faster permit processes and more predictable permit processes, one opposes just that in this report because it concerns nuclear power. Despite the fact that the Social Democrats in their budget maintain the state supports and investments regarding nuclear power, one does not want this fast track and this simplification of the process. Regardless of these simplifications, the process is long and convoluted – from investment will to execution. One is tested against a multitude of laws and in a multitude of courts and so on.

We thus have a divided opposition when it comes to energy issues, but the major trend within the energy policy area is an increased consensus and a convergence where the opposition is increasingly approaching the Tidö parties' views on the issues.

I choose to stay there, Madam Speaker.

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Madam Speaker! We have just received an account of what this matter is fundamentally about – a more purposeful assessment of nuclear facilities.

We from the Social Democrats have been very clear from the beginning in the handling of this matter that this product needs to be decommissioned. I want to explain why and what we believe needs to be done instead.

Let us begin with the basics. Nuclear power is not just any kind of activity. It involves technology that places very high demands on safety, long-term perspective, and accountability. It is about protecting people and the environment – also future generations. And it is about trust. It is about trust in our institutions. It is about trust in our authorities and for the decisions that we here in the chamber make. Precisely because of that, the review system for the nuclear facilities must be rigorous, legally secure, and stable over time.

Madam Speaker! The Government says it wants to streamline and clarify today's system, as we heard Tobias Andersson talk about. It is actually a reasonable ambition in principle, because no one benefits from unnecessary bureaucracy or unclear processes. But the decisive factor is not what one says one wants to do, but what one actually proposes and puts forward for a decision in the chamber.

A problem arises here. When we have reviewed this proposal and received the referral responses from authorities, experts, and actors in the industry, we have a completely different picture than the one we heard here before and that the government is trying to present. Instead of creating clarity, the proposal risks leading to exactly the opposite – increased ambiguity, more boundary issues, and new dependencies between the different authorities.

This means in practice that the process becomes more complex, not less complex. What will the consequences of that be? Yes, more appeals, longer processing times, and reduced predictability for everyone involved.

It is worth stopping there, because precisely predictability is something that both the business community and responsible authorities repeatedly highlight as absolutely crucial. Without clear rules of the game, investments become more difficult, planning more uncertain, and decision-making more risky.

Madam Speaker! It is telling that a heavy and experienced actor such as Vattenfall, in its referral response, points out that the current assessment model, that is, the one that applies today, is in several respects preferable to the government's proposal, which we are to vote on today. When such an actor – with a deep knowledge of both the system and the practical applications – warns against these changes, everyone in this chamber should pause and listen.

We Social Democrats believe that a changed assessment system must fulfill some basic requirements.

Firstly, it must be robust. It must withstand testing over time and function even when conditions change.

Secondly, it must be legally secure. Decisions must be made on clear grounds, and there must be legitimate opportunities for oversight and appeal, but without the system itself creating more or unnecessary conflicts.

For the third, it must be ensured that high requirements for safety and the environment may never be compromised.

Fourthly, which is sometimes forgotten in the debate, other important societal interests must also be weighed in. This can involve land use, regional development and the impact on the local community.

Our collective assessment is that the government's proposal does not meet these requirements at all. In other words, it is not sufficiently elaborated. It creates more problems than it solves and risks undermining the trust upon which the entire system rests.

Our clear conclusion is therefore that this bill needs to be rejected – the Riksdag needs to vote no to it.

But let me also be equally clear about what this does not mean. This is not a defense of today's system in all parts. We see, just like many others, that there is a need for improvements. The processes can become more efficient, the distribution of responsibility can become clearer, and the processing times can be shortened. Crucial, however, is that the changes to be made must be made with quality. We must not rush forward with a proposal that goes in the other direction.

Madam Speaker! It is completely central for us that the review system provides stable and predictable conditions for all involved actors. This applies to companies, authorities, and not least the people who are affected by the decisions.

At the same time, the system must be designed so that public confidence in the security and environmental assessment remains strong. Without that confidence, every decision risks being questioned, and then we lose something much greater than just time in an individual process. Ultimately, it is about trust in our democratic decision-making.

Madam Speaker! Against that background, we mean that the government should return to the Riksdag with a new and elaborated proposal, a better proposal that truly simplifies the assessment not only on paper but also in practice, a proposal that ensures that high requirements for safety and environment are maintained, a proposal that takes into account the different views that authorities, experts, and industry actors have actually put forward regarding the hasty work being presented today. This is what the Riksdag should make known to the government.

Madam Speaker! Accountability is not just about acting, but also about acting correctly and properly. In this issue, for us, it means saying no to this deficient proposal in order to pave the way for a better proposal. Therefore, we move for the rejection of the bill.

I move for approval of reservation 1, which is a unanimous reservation from the Socialdemokraterna, Vänsterpartiet, Centerpartiet, and Miljöpartiet.

The current rules that can also be applied from the authorities will continue to be applied. We say no to the government's invention, and with the mess regarding the receipting that the Sverigedemokraterna have caused, I hope that the bill will be voted down.

(Applause)

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden finds itself in a time of increasing uncertainty, as we have seen over the last five or six years. Pandemic, war in our vicinity, the return of inflation, high energy prices and halted planned electricity production have pressured families and companies and hit the Swedish economy.

It is not certain that the most demanding time lies behind us. When anxiety in the world around us increases, energy prices are affected. When energy prices rise, the entire economy is affected. Companies get higher costs. Families get lower margins. Investments are pushed into the future.

Sweden is not immune to what is happening in the rest of the world, but Sweden faces the uncertainty from a stronger position than many other countries. We have strong public finances, well-functioning institutions, and an electricity system that, despite major deficiencies, still has important strengths through remaining nuclear power, hydropower, and renewable electricity production.

That is why we must also be wise enough to build upon what works, because in restless times, stability, responsibility and predictability are hard currency. It applies to the economy, it applies to the state finances and it applies to the energy policy.

Madam Speaker! Sweden needs more electricity. But electricity is not just individual kilowatt-hours, and the energy mix is not just a pie chart. Sweden needs more predictable, fossil-free base load, and we need it particularly in southern Sweden. That is where the electricity shortage is most noticeable. That is where families and companies for a long time have had to bear the consequences of an electricity system that no longer delivers sufficiently stably, sufficiently predictably, and sufficiently cheaply.

Madam Speaker! This is not about technology for technology's sake. It is about people's everyday lives. It is about the family with children in Skåne who see how the electricity bill eats up the margins. It is about the industrial company that wants to grow but hesitates when the electricity supply is uncertain. It is about the farmer, the shop owner, and the workshop company that do everything right, work hard, and take responsibility – but who face an electricity system that is not sufficient.

When the world becomes more uncertain, Sweden needs to become more robust. If we are to level out electricity prices, strengthen competitiveness, and give Skåne better conditions to grow, we must also dare to say what is true: Sweden needs nuclear power in southern Sweden.

Madam Speaker! That is why the government is now removing layer after layer of obstacles that have complicated, delayed, and practically made new nuclear power in Sweden impossible. It is not about compromising on safety or bypassing environmental assessments. It is about creating order, clarity, and predictability.

Those who want to invest tens or hundreds of billions in new electricity production must know what the rules are. The process must be understandable. It must be possible to plan. It must be possible to trust that the state does not say one thing in energy policy and then do something else in the legislation.

At a time when Sweden needs investments, growth and more hours worked, it is directly harmful if politics contributes to uncertainty regarding one of the economy's most fundamental functions: the availability of electricity. Therefore, the government is changing course. We are removing obstacles and strengthening the conditions. We are building an electricity system that holds even when it is cold, dark and still. A winter-secured energy policy, one could call it.

Madam Speaker! The bill we are debating today concerns a more purposeful examination of nuclear power plants. Today, the process for examining new nuclear power can be complicated and difficult to oversee. Several different laws and examinations are interconnected but not always in a completely clear way. This creates uncertainty for those who want to build, for the authorities that are to conduct the examination, and for the municipalities that are affected.

The government's proposal means that a new law regarding the government's approval of nuclear facilities is introduced, which states that whoever wants to build a nuclear facility shall be able to apply directly to the government for an approval. Such an approval shall replace the permit review that the government otherwise performs according to the Environmental Code. If this has our committee chair already told.

Parallel to this, amendments are being made to several other laws to ensure the system hangs together better. It concerns a plan for nuclear facilities that the government shall be able to decide on in a first step. That plan shall apply to the area and the facilities that the application subsequently concerns. Through the plan, it is assessed whether it is appropriate to use land and water in that manner.

I hope that the school classes in the gallery are following along with this somewhat technical speech!

Madam Speaker! The plan we are talking about can only be decided upon if someone has applied for approval and if the municipalities included in the planning area have approved both the application and the plan. This means that the state, to make it simple, gets a clearer opportunity to examine the whole. But the municipalities continue to have an important role, and that is reasonable.

The proposal also means that it shall be possible to obtain a preliminary decision according to the Act on Nuclear Activities. If an actor can find out early whether a certain issue can be solved or not, the risk of large resources being spent on projects that later get stuck in the process is reduced.

Madam Speaker! Nuclear power plays an important role in meeting the future electricity needs and strengthening the security of supply in the electricity system. It is about families' finances, about industrial investments, about the climate, about defense capability, and about Sweden's long-term economic growth. Electricity supply is not a side issue but a fundamental prerequisite for a country that wants to be secure, wealthy, and competitive. And that is what we shall be. Without electricity, Sweden stops. With more predictable electricity, Sweden can continue to grow.

Madam Speaker! The opposition wants to reject the government's proposal. Some want to reject everything. Some want to reject parts. Some want to reject it because the proposal simplifies too little. Someone wants to reject it because the proposal simplifies too much. The great division that the left-wing parties display regarding issues such as the unemployment insurance fund, the mortgage tax, the benefits, and the employer contributions is also found within energy policy. The Moderates' view is that Sweden cannot afford any more energy policy uncertainty.

Madam Speaker! In uncertain times, trust and predictability are hard currency for a country. It is not enough to say that one wants more electricity but at the same time vote no to proposals that make it possible to produce more predictable electricity. It is also not quite enough to talk about the industry's climate transition but turn a blind eye to the fact that industry needs electricity every hour of the day and year round. It is also not enough to say that families and companies in southern Sweden should get lower and more stable electricity prices but at the same time oppose the base power that is needed for us to be able to get there. Irresponsibility in energy policy pays its price, and the price is paid by Swedish families and companies.

Madam Speaker! The Government does not say that nuclear power is the only solution, but Sweden needs more of everything, including nuclear power. Today's proposal and report do not alone solve all of Sweden's energy problems. But it is a step in the right direction, because it makes the assessment clearer and shows that Sweden is serious about building new nuclear power.

We Moderates will not promise everything to everyone. We will not fuel the uncertainty with short-term announcements. We will not pursue an energy policy where ideological deadlocks take precedence over families' finances and companies' needs. Hard-working people must be able to rely on electricity being available when it is needed and where it is needed. Therefore, nuclear power was needed.

(Applause)

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! The matter NU19 is titled A more purposeful review of nuclear facilities. But it could be renamed to The Government is trying with all available means to facilitate new nuclear power or something of that sort, because that is what the matter is about. Just what one can read about regarding when the bill is intended to enter into force says a great deal. The new legislative change is proposed to enter into force on June 17 already this year. There is a panic now to try to get the shovel in the ground for something that will indebt several generations and which perhaps is not even needed. I am prepared to go as far as to say that if we manage to get a thorough analysis of the situation and then look at how much base load is needed and if it can be achieved in other, even cheaper ways, we will land on something.

Madam Speaker! The government is trying, by all possible means – legislative changes and guarantees for investors – to make it look as if there is great support for building new nuclear power. I am actually a pragmatic politician. Everyone who has known me before or who has gotten to know me here in my role as a Member of Parliament knows that. But the way they are rushing through new nuclear power is nothing other than unserious and a deception of the Swedish people. They make it appear as if it were a cow on the ice and the only chance to save it is to put the shovel in the ground for new nuclear power before September 13, otherwise a catastrophe awaits us. It is a lie.

Listen up, the Swedish people! The government wants us in Sweden to have cheap electricity at hand. That sounds good, and I agree. But when other countries in the EU are willing to let the impact of gas on the electricity price be decoupled, both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Energy write to the Commission that marginal pricing works well and that they do not want a functioning market to be disturbed.

In this debate, we will hardly get clear answers regarding the situation concerning these letters that were sent to the commission on March 4 and 5, but we have filed a report with the KU against the Prime Minister for the answer he gave to the party leader Nooshi Dadgostar during the question period a few weeks ago. There, he claimed that it was a misunderstanding of what he had written. But I believe, as I said, that the interpretation will be made and that the truth will prevail even in this matter.

Why, a friend of order might ask, would this government not want electricity to be as cheap as possible for Swedish households and Swedish industry? One would think it is clear that they want that. But if we can show that electricity produced in Sweden does not cost an arm and a leg and could be delivered at prices much lower than what marginal pricing delivers, the picture of new nuclear power clearly becomes worse.

High electricity bills are a cash cow for the state. That is how it is, regardless of who holds government power. But we have a heavy industry that is at the forefront when it comes to transitioning. Then we cannot let prestige and the fact that this government wants to show voters that it delivers on promises regarding new nuclear power stand in the way. That is what the matter is about.

Madam Speaker! Much is at stake. Shall we, with an ass's stubbornness, try to get investors to start with new nuclear power instead of seriously analyzing investments in nuclear power? As I said: I am being pragmatic. Let us look at how the situation looks for the reactors that are in operation today! I hear nowhere anyone talking about how long they will be able to keep going. Can they be life-extended? How long in that case? And so on.

A grip needs to be taken on the entire system under a broad energy agreement. That is something I agree with, even with the Moderaterna. Only then can Swedish households and Swedish industry receive the fair treatment from us politicians that they expect. But we are not there. Prestige has come into play in a very important issue, and it will become an Achilles' heel for our country.

I move for approval of reservation 1, which is a joint reservation, which the Social Democrats' member presented and highlighted so well in their speech.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is not the first and certainly not the last time I say this in the Swedish Riksdag: Sweden faces yet another decisive crossroads for our energy supply. The demand for electricity is increasing sharply for households, for industry, and for the transition. In this situation, politics must take responsibility for an electricity system that is stable, secure in its supply, and long-term sustainable. In that, nuclear power plays a major role.

We Christian Democrats believe that nuclear power is necessary to meet the future's electricity needs and to ensure that Sweden continues to have a robust electricity system at all hours of the year and throughout the entire country. Ambitions are not enough; functional rules of the game are required.

In order for new nuclear power to be built, better and clearer investment conditions are required. Today's regulatory framework is protracted and confusing, and it creates uncertainty for actors who are prepared to take great responsibility and very long-term investment risks. Therefore, it is welcome that the government is now presenting a proposal that improves the conditions for new establishments.

The bill we are discussing today aims to create a more purposeful and efficient system for the inspection of nuclear facilities with clear roles and clear responsibilities. It is necessary if Sweden is to be able to move from words to action in energy policy.

We welcome the government's proposition. Constantly pushing the issue forward through new consultations and reworked proposals risks cementing the paralysis of action that has already cost Sweden both competitiveness and security in the energy system.

Madam Speaker! The opposition is directing criticism from various sides. The Social Democrats argue that the efficiency is not being improved sufficiently and want to see yet another new proposal. We Christian Democrats do not quite share that assessment. We believe that Sweden now needs predictability and decisiveness, not more rounds of uncertainty.

Other opposition parties oppose nuclear power for principled reasons, regardless of utility or cost, or highlight municipal influence, particularly in issues concerning final disposal. The municipal perspective is important, but it must be weighed against national interests. The energy supply is ultimately a responsibility of the state and the entire country.

Other parties further argue that nuclear power slows down the transition and increases costs. The Christian Democrats, on the other hand, see that without predictable fossil-free electricity, the transition risks coming to a halt and households risk being hit by even greater price variations.

Madam Speaker! Sweden needs to have a government and politicians who have the courage to make decisions. We have a weather-dependent electricity system, which can be problematic in peacetime but unacceptable in wartime. The transition, our competitiveness, the industry, and thus our defense are dependent on electricity being there where it is needed and when it is needed. Therefore, we need to create our own destiny with a predictable and controllable electricity system, not leave it to the weather.

Madam Speaker! Energy policy is about responsibility for future generations. It is about combining climate responsibility with security, competitiveness, and social sustainability. Therefore, the Christian Democrats say yes to this bill and no to continued passivity. Sweden needs more electricity, Sweden needs stable electricity, and Sweden needs to make decisions. I move that the proposal in the report be approved.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Camilla Brodin! In my speech, I mentioned the letter that the Prime Minister wrote to the responsible EU Commissioner. The following day, it was followed by a letter from the Minister for Energy. In it, the Minister for Energy praises the marginal pricing, even though we know that it is that which spreads so that higher prices hit us in Sweden.

How does Member of Parliament Camilla Brodin view the fact that we have an Energy Minister who does not want to protect Swedish consumers? She has sent a letter and stated that she does not want this to be touched. But those who raise the issue in the EU Commission argue that gas prices have a spillover effect and create higher electricity prices, which also affects Swedish customers. How does Member of Parliament Brodin view the challenge that Sweden, so to speak, protects by saying that gas prices should not be decoupled?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! It does not really belong in connection with this report but is an individual question that lies outside, but I nevertheless choose to answer it as well as I can.

Let me begin with the doubts about where we have Energy Minister Busch regarding the prices for Swedish electricity consumers. We know that we have a strong voice in Brussels with Ebba at the helm. She is also trying to ensure that we will be able to keep all the bottleneck revenues that the EU wants to take from us, so that we can keep them in Sweden and give them back to Swedish electricity consumers.

All parties in the Swedish Riksdag should feel a sense of pride that we are truly taking the fight against Brussels. At the same time, one must also choose which battles to take that make a difference for households here in Sweden.

I do, however, know that Vänsterpartiet has a completely different view on the future's energy policy, and I do not understand how one can make the calculation work if one wants to talk about robustness and security of supply while simultaneously wanting to keep prices down.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Brodin, for the answer!

I definitely claim that this is connected because the government points to low electricity prices. But the government is working in the other direction. They want high electricity prices because otherwise the case for nuclear power will not be sustainable.

"Therefore, we urge the commission to refrain from presenting an electricity market reform that risks damaging the much-needed confidence of investors."

Madam Speaker and Member Brodin! It is precisely this that I am pointing out. They do not want Swedish customers to get lower electricity prices, because it will not favor the case for new nuclear power. They clearly tried to brake a reform that the commission wanted to put forward, which aimed at ensuring that electricity pricing would not be dependent on gas prices.

The Minister's answer to the commission is however clear: One does not want to budge on this. One wants high electricity prices for the residents of Skåne.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Birger Lahti, for the contribution! However, I heard no answer to the question I posed to the Vänsterpartiet. Birger Lahti stayed outside of what we are debating today.

Neither the government nor the current Minister for Energy, Busch, wants people to have high electricity prices in southern Sweden. We are doing everything we can to get rid of the high electricity prices in Sweden. We do this through a series of parallel efforts to be able to have a secure and robust electricity system moving forward and electricity at reasonable prices.

The problem today is a weather-dependent system, which means that when there are negative prices as there are in the current situation, there is not a single wind power producer who wants to invest in Sweden. We need to create conditions to build base load, especially in southern Sweden, if the people of Skåne are to have lower electricity prices in the future.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I was struck by two things that Camilla Brodin said in her speech.

To begin with, she said that energy supply is a state responsibility, and therefore the municipal veto against nuclear power should be abolished. A restriction of the municipality's right is part of an upcoming government bill. But if energy supply is a state responsibility, why is it only for nuclear power that the municipal veto is to be abolished?

We in the Center Party believe that the municipal veto should be maintained for both nuclear power and for wind power. But in all scenarios that exist for an expanded energy system that is to reach the 300 terawatt-hours that we agree upon, land-based wind power is the type of power that is expanded the most. If one now argues that it is a state responsibility and that there therefore should not be a municipal veto against nuclear power, I wonder why there should then be one on wind power. The restrictions are significantly greater in the use of land when it comes to nuclear power.

Camilla Brodin also speaks about security and the importance of an energy system that is robust in times of crisis and war. All experiences from Russia's invasion of Ukraine show that a decentralized energy system is a stronger and more robust energy system. This was also stated in a unanimous total defense preparedness in 2017.

What facts does Camilla Brodin have as a basis for making a different analysis? What she herself advocates for is a centralized energy system with several large units, which Ukraine says is insane. They build as small and as flexible as they can, as close to the point of use as possible, and as decentralized as possible, because it is less vulnerable.

What factual basis does Camilla Brodin have for making a different analysis, considering that she says what the government advocates is safer, despite all the experience we have from Ukraine?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Nordin, for all your questions!

I will start with the one that concerned the use of land, the municipal veto, and the state's responsibility. Yes, there is a state responsibility to ensure that electricity is there when and where it is needed, for real, and that it is also available at reasonable prices. Just as I have always done in this chamber, I maintain that the state should take that responsibility.

Now we show the way forward for how we can build nuclear power. We have had a system where we have both had the base load in the form of nuclear power and additionally the hydropower, which has also ensured that we have created the base load that we have and the fossil power system that we have nevertheless had. The system is, however, becoming increasingly weather-dependent, which can actually create crises even in peacetime. We can also see that it is completely unacceptable to have a completely weather-dependent system in times of war.

When it comes to the use of land, one can ask everyone around Sweden if they think that wind power, which occupies quite large areas, is completely unproblematic. How is nuclear power perceived at the sites we actually have today? When it comes to the use of land, one sees that it concerns quite limited areas. But we get quite a lot of power, precisely what Sweden lacks today. We produce more electricity than we ourselves consume. That is completely correct and right, and we have never claimed anything else. But on the other hand, we lack the power. It is that we import.

We must plan for a different electricity system if we are to be able to manage the challenges we have ahead of us. But I have not seen that the member Nordin's party has been able to come up with that type of solution moving forward.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Build on the sites we have today, Camilla Brodin, where the acceptance exists! Then we can agree that we will not open up for building new nuclear power along the entire coastline, for example, where people do not want nuclear power. Valdemarsvik's archipelago, for example, is a very bad place to build on. There is no support in that municipality. In fact, a survey came out the other day saying that a third of the population wants nuclear power in their own municipality. That is half as many as those who want wind power in their own municipality.

If one now thinks that nuclear power is the best and cheapest, and the best thing since sliced bread, why then does one not trust one's own population? Let them decide! If one now thinks that it is so good, why should the government then be able to override municipalities in these matters?

I also did not receive any answer as to what factual basis and what security policy assumptions make the government and Camilla Brodin think that a centralized power system is better than a decentralized one. What experiences have emerged since 2017, when we agreed on this? Rather, it is the opposite: All experience from Ukraine shows that it is madness to build large production facilities, because they are so vulnerable. And if the production facility can be protected, they instead knock out the grid around it. It is simply much better with small, decentralized facilities. The Ukrainians themselves say so, moreover.

When it comes to reasonable prices, I think Camilla Brodin should tell the Swedish people who is going to pay, how the whole thing is to be replaced, and how the 440 billion in loans is to be obtained, and then the guarantee prices that are to pay back the loans. Who is actually going to cover them? It is not the private companies that are going to do it, but it is the taxpayers who will do it in the end.

I am also curious – Camilla Brodin says that we should not have an entirely weather-dependent energy system. I have not seen anyone who has proposed that. If one wants to look at how we can get more capacity, one can read a very good report that Centerpartiet has released, based on reports from Sveriges Ingenjörer and Energimyndigheten regarding increased capacity from both combined heat and power and hydropower as well as energy efficiency, which can provide approximately four times as much capacity in half the time compared to the government's proposal.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Rickard Nordin, for further questions! I actually really appreciate them. I have not read your report but will of course do so.

Security policy is of paramount importance for this government. Therefore, we have ensured that we have the Armed Forces with us and that we also have the entire security policy situation with us.

We are now ensuring the conditions to build nuclear power in more places than the three existing sites. We are also creating the possibility to have it not only in three places but also to build small modular reactors, what is commonly called SMRs, in order to be able to have a more independent power system that also connects – to be able to deliver electricity when and where it is needed. I believe that one needs to have many parallel thoughts in one's head at the same time.

I am incredibly proud that this government has overhauled the entire energy policy so that we can actually rely on the electricity being there at reasonable prices when we need it and that we do not have to turn away companies that want to come and establish themselves or risk that citizens will receive bills that are enormously large because we have completely unstable electricity prices in the current situation. Yes, one can call it yo-yo prices. It is something that this government does not want to be held accountable for, but we are overhauling that entire direction. I am incredibly proud of it.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Sweden stands in the midst of a double challenge. We must manage the climate transition and at the same time ensure that companies and households have access to fossil-free, competitive electricity that is expanded rapidly to match the upcoming needs. This requires an energy system that is both robust here and now and capable of meeting tomorrow's needs.

For us in Centerpartiet, the starting point is very simple: We need much more fossil-free energy, because we are to get rid of the oil, the fossil gas, and the coal. That means we must expand all types of power that contribute to the climate transition, that is to say wind power, solar power, bioenergy, and hydropower, and – yes – also provide the opportunity for new nuclear power where it is relevant and economically justifiable. Furthermore, we must make what we already have more efficient and steer smarter.

But, Madam Speaker, the will to build is not enough; Sweden must also be able to make decisions. Today's permit processes are often long, unpredictable, and difficult to navigate. It creates uncertainty for investors, makes projects more expensive, increases costs for end consumers, and risks slowing down both electrification and industrial development.

We welcome the ambition in this committee report: to make the examination of nuclear facilities more purposeful, more predictable and better adapted to reality. The problem is that the government's bill does not achieve this. Not even Vattenfall, the company that is to build the government's nuclear power, wants this legislation. The uncertainties are too great and the risk of delays is significant.

Why is such legislation being put forward then? This is not streamlining, but some kind of complication.

Nuclear activities place extreme demands on safety, radiation protection, waste management, and long-term responsibility. Therefore, the rule of law must be strong, the expert authorities independent, and the environmental assessment continued rigorous. The government now wants to loosen this. It is completely irresponsible. Furthermore, the actors who want to build nuclear power say that this complicates and delays. It is just a way to signal what one wants without thinking about the consequences.

For us in Centerpartiet, the role of the municipalities is also completely central. Decisions regarding large energy facilities affect people, businesses, and local communities for a very long time to come. Therefore, there must be a local influence. Municipalities must not be overridden by the state – they should be co-creators in Sweden's energy transition and benefit from hosting energy facilities. But then there must be a choice.

In this proposal, the government proposes further restrictions on local decision-making. In short, the government is to be allowed to override the people. It is perhaps not strange in itself that the government wants to take that right, given that only a third of the population wants nuclear power in their own municipality.

Let me also take the opportunity to debunk some myths. We heard here that Swedish electricity prices are yo-yoing and that one solves this with new nuclear power. In that case, one has not understood how the market works. If one subsidizes new nuclear power, it will not be cheap, first and foremost. Then you will get a way to push down electricity prices, but marginal pricing remains. And the lowest marginal price is for the renewable power sources, namely solar and wind power. They will still be at the top. It will still be exactly as much yo-yo, but from a lower level of the electricity price and a higher level on the electricity bill because someone has to pay for the subsidies.

If you want to see fewer peak prices, you should have flexible power, not base load. You should have more capacity in hydropower and combined heat and power, more controllable flexibility, more battery storage and more smart home solutions. That is the solution to volatile electricity prices.

If you think that volatile electricity prices are troublesome, I can suggest that there are fixed electricity contracts to sign. It becomes a bit more expensive because it is an insurance, but there are all the possibilities to sign such contracts.

I also want to puncture the myth that Sweden's electricity system is ruined, which we have heard from the rostrum. We can look at the World Energy Council's ranking, which is the most credible international ranking that exists when it comes to exactly energy systems. In 2022, Sweden was ranked first in the world, and in 2025, Sweden was ranked second. I would not claim that the government has ruined Sweden's energy system, but we have obviously dropped in the ranking rather than climbed.

What was pointed out in last year's ranking was that there is a very clear cloud of concern in the Swedish energy system, namely that we are becoming more fossil-dependent. Our transport sector's external dependence is increasing. This is what the World Energy Council points out. This is far from the rhetoric in this chamber.

We have also heard that nuclear power is needed to lower electricity prices. It is the only way to get lower electricity prices in Skåne, it has been said, but in that case, one has to wait 15–20 years. I believe that the people of Skåne want lower electricity prices a bit faster than that. But in a sense, one is right: There will probably be lower electricity prices, but the electricity bill will be higher because someone will have to pay for the subsidies.

When it comes to what the government is prepared to pay for nuclear power, the Moderaterna say that one does not promise everything to everyone. No, but one promises everything to those who are going to build new nuclear power. We are talking about approximately 100,000 kronor per adult Swede. It is a significant increase in either tax or electricity bills; both things go against what one campaigned on.

We went to the election on the basis that subsidies for nuclear power were not needed. Possibly credit guarantees, they said – that was the only thing. Then we have seen how, step by step, more has been added to the bill – in practice, a blank check has been signed. Now, furthermore, the state is to take responsibility for the waste, despite the fact that we have historically been very clear that it is the one who creates the waste or the emission who should pay to take care of it.

If we want to make Sweden grow and think that nuclear power is the only way to achieve that, as the Moderaterna said, we will therefore have to wait for 15 years. It might not be so strange considering that we have had very low growth in the country during this mandate period. It will probably continue. If nothing else, this should make one consider a different government after the election.

If we instead want quick effect – we can talk effect, as Camilla Brodin says – there is potential in the combined heat and power that exists in southern Sweden, equivalent to approximately two reactors. Sveriges Ingenjörer has said that at least half of that can be realized in three years, at a cost of 10–15 billion. That is approximately 2 percent of what the government wants to spend on nuclear power.

We have potential in hydropower equivalent to approximately four reactors. It is approximately double the power that will be achieved with what the government wants to invest in nuclear power, and we can do it at half or a quarter of the cost.

Then we still haven't talked about the effect that already exists in existing combined heat and power and which is not utilized, equivalent to an additional nuclear power plant. We can probably extract that for 3–4 billion, which is approximately half a percent of what the government wants to spend on new nuclear power.

There is plenty of potential in existing systems, but it is clear that combined heat and power and the burning of wood chips and waste do not fit as well into the culture war. It does not fit as well on election posters, and it does not sound as impactful from the rostrum. But it is the reality, and for those who want lower electricity prices and fewer "jojo prices," it is probably better to stick to reality than to the culture war.

We simply need less energy policy volatility and more long-term perspective. When the rules of the game change back and forth in this way, we lose both investments and momentum. This applies regardless of the type of power. Everything becomes more expensive to build.

The political risk for offshore wind is practically 100 percent. No one is allowed to build it, and in practice, all relevant projects have been ruled out. We must return to a technology-neutral approach, without the blinkers that the government has put up, where it is climate benefit, security of supply, and cost-effectiveness that guide, not forced regulatory frameworks like the legislation we are now debating.

We should have an energy commission appointed after the election, where we can find common solutions. There is a surprisingly large amount that we agree on. You are nodding along here when I speak about combined heat and power, but why do we not focus on that then? If combined heat and power is now the fastest and cheapest solution, why does the government never highlight it? This is a problem.

The climate does not wait. Industry does not wait. Swedish households expect it to work, that companies will do well and that the transition will be accelerated. This bill does not deliver that. I therefore move for its rejection and for the approval of reservation 1.

We know that Sweden can do more.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! I will keep it quite brief. Much has been said.

What is proposed in the bill is that through a new law, it shall be possible to evaluate in different ways whether a nuclear power plant should be allowed to be constructed. The proposal means that the person who wants to build such a plant can apply directly to the government for an approval. Through this process, more actors shall be able to invest in new nuclear power in more locations and in different places in the country. This naturally applies to both new and old actors, but it can also involve both large and small producers. I think that is naturally good. As has been stated here in the chamber earlier during the debate, it is also completely necessary if we are to achieve the stability in the system that we need. It is one of several necessary steps to achieve long-term perspective and security of supply.

Arguments have been put forward regarding how secure the process is. What is proposed is that the government shall approve a nuclear facility if it has first decided on a plan for nuclear facilities. The plan shall cover the area and the facilities that the application concerns. Through the plan, the government shall examine whether it is compatible with the Environmental Code's rules on the management of land and water to build that type of facility in the area in question. A plan may only be decided upon if someone has applied for approval and if the municipalities included in the planning area have approved the application and the plan.

It is, therefore, a very solid process that is being proposed. It is also a simpler and more transparent procedure. The purpose is to achieve increased stability and more reasonable conditions for those who wish to invest, and in that regard, we see that certain risks need to be managed earlier in the project. Thus, we create the possibility for nuclear power in more locations in Sweden. This creates conditions for more companies to invest in new nuclear power, which is good. With increased competition, I believe it will also become easier to keep investment costs down.

I therefore move for the proposal to be approved. We differ on nuclear power, the state's risk-sharing, and how the process should look moving forward, but I want to emphasize that we in the Liberals see it as an entirely necessary step to achieve long-term perspective.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! When the government speaks about the report, it sounds as if the issue is about removing administration for new nuclear power, as if it were about processing times and folders being moved between agencies.

I think we should be honest. This is one of the different parts of the government's political project to force through new nuclear power, at any cost. And now they want to do it by weakening the review, reducing democratic control, and giving nuclear power a new special status by letting the government have more of a say. It is not expedient. It is irresponsible.

Madam Speaker! Nuclear facilities are one of the most risky activities that a society can permit. It is an activity where the risks cannot be insured away and which risks causing environmental damage that can never be restored. It is an activity that produces waste that must be kept isolated longer than any human civilization has ever existed.

That is why Sweden has had a thorough, independent and robust review process. Now the government thinks it is troublesome. It is too slow, and it is too inconvenient. Therefore, they want to make it toothless.

The Tidö parties like to talk about efficiency, but what is being proposed here in practice is less Environmental Code, less transparency, less local democracy, and more power to the government and industry.

This is not modernization. It is centralization and political shortcut policy. If nuclear power were so safe, so necessary and so competitive, why would it then not survive the existing review process?

At the same time, we see that there is an overriding risk that households and companies will have to bear the costs through higher electricity prices and new fees when the government pushes through proposals for state guarantees, loans, and risk assumption on the order of hundreds of billions to support the new nuclear power. It means that when calculations fail – which they always have in the history of nuclear power – it is the taxpayers who have to foot the bill. And what do we get in return? We do not get electricity in time for the climate transition. We do not get cheap electricity, and we get no flexibility. We get projects that, if they even happen, possibly start delivering electricity sometime in the mid-2040s.

At the same time, we know that renewable energy can be built now. Wind, solar, storage, and efficiency press prices, reduce emissions, and strengthen energy security without leaving radioactive waste for hundreds of thousands of years. To pretend in this situation that nuclear power must be saved from an extensive environmental review because the climate requires it is not serious.

Madam Speaker! The environmental assessment is not pure bureaucracy. It exists to protect people, nature, and future generations, not least from political prestige projects and short-sighted thinking. When the government calls this an obstacle, they are saying in practice that it is too expensive and complicated to ensure a safe and environmentally adapted assessment of nuclear power. The issue is part of the Tidö parties' policy, where we can see that the Environmental Code is being eroded, local communities are being overridden, and the state is locking Sweden into expensive, slow, and risky energy.

Madam Speaker! Sweden needs a fast, robust and renewable energy system, not symbol politics and nuclear power romanticism from the 20th century. We therefore say no to the proposal as a whole, and we will continue to stand up for the precautionary principle, environmental responsibility and the right for future generations to avoid paying for today's political prestige.

Therefore, I also wish to move for approval of reservation 1 in the report.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 18.)

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