A clearer process for the permit review of electricity grids

Tobias Andersson (SD)

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

We will now proceed to debate the report that the committee has processed in connection with the proposition A clearer process for permit assessment of electricity grids. The proposition contains legislative proposals aimed at contributing to a clearer and faster process for renewing, reinforcing, and expanding electricity grids through amendments to the Environmental Code and the Electricity Act. The proposals concern high-voltage power lines that require a grid concession for the line, as the permit process for such lines is longer than for other grids.

Madam Speaker! Very simplified, it is about making the permit review clearer and thereby shortening lead times in the permit process by allowing the government to issue regulations on the choice of technology between constructing an overhead line or a land or sea cable. This choice of technology between overhead line or land or sea cable occurs in most grid concession cases. Despite this, criticism has been raised that there are no clear criteria for how the choice should be made, which results in protracted processes during both application and review.

By moving the choice of technology to a lower level than stipulating it in law, flexibility is also increased, which is a prerequisite when technological development moves forward rapidly.

Madam Speaker! The proposition also proposes that the construction and maintenance of high-voltage power lines with a network concession for line be exempted from the prohibitions in the Environmental Code against impacts on areas covered by general biotope or shore protection.

This is naturally reasonable given how central expanded power grids are to meet the increasing electricity demand, and why many measures were needed in the area. This transition must, if necessary, be able to take precedence over a shore protection or biotope protection. That is why this will be implemented.

Common rule-of-law examinations will still take place, but the policy will now facilitate, lift bans, and provide regulations to enable the expansion of the electricity grid infrastructure. That we expedite these processes will benefit both electricity producers and electricity consumers.

Unfortunately, the permit processes are the culprit in the drama all too often. Specifically in this case, it concerns the electricity grid, but there is a larger ongoing work regarding permit processes concerning mines, industrial establishments, power production facilities, etc.

The permit processes must not be what hinders our business sector or the transition that is underway. In this case, it is about us tackling the legislative part, but in many cases, it is also about pure agency application. I would like to highlight a few things that the government has done or started beyond the bill that we are debating in connection with this report.

The government appointed an ambitious investigation last June on shortened and simplified permit processes, which shall ensure that the process from application to decision goes faster and becomes simpler, more efficient, and more predictable. The investigation will be reported at the end of this year.

At the same time, work is being continued at the ministry to be able to implement parts of the proposals from the Environmental Assessment Inquiry and the Climate Justice Inquiry, whose final reports were submitted during the previous government's mandate period.

We have also, in connection with the Natura 2000 permit at the application for a processing concession according to the Mining Act, streamlined the Mining Act to speed up permit processes for mines. We have also added almost 100 million kronor to the county administrative boards for their environmental supervision, supervisory guidance, and environmental assessment.

We have further allocated 10 million kronor to Sveriges Domstolar so that they can streamline their work in handling the permit reviews. Furthermore, Madam Speaker, we have directed simplification mandates to authorities and given business-promoting mandates to county administrative boards so that they shall promote the agency contact that occurs so that we get significantly faster permit processes, regardless of the specific case or context.

Furthermore, a review of the official responsibility is underway. Many business owners across the country testify that not only the legislation in the area but also the agency application can be hindering. Many have a feeling that the agency supervision and the handling of the permit processes do not occur in accordance with current legislation or regulations, but that there is also a hint of activism among some officials, who deliberately—based on their own conviction or ambition—try to complicate or, in some cases, make more expensive. Therefore, even an official responsibility, or an expanded one if one is to be accurate, could come to shorten future permit processes.

Madam Speaker! In this speech, I have attempted to clarify exactly what the bill concerns, given that I am the first speaker in the debate, but I have also attempted to highlight the other processes that are ongoing or that have already occurred on the government's side linked to permit processes in a broader sense.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the electricity grid, the Center Party has long pushed to increase compensation for those who have encroachments on their land and also for neighbors, similar to how the system in Finland works.

I know that the Sweden Democrats, when it comes to electricity production, would like to have a regionalized property tax. That has at least been said previously. I am a bit curious about how the Sweden Democrats reason here. Are you prepared to also review the compensations to landowners and neighbors when it concerns the electricity grid?

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Rickard Nordin!

There is, which perhaps is noticeable from the question, no major conflict in connection with the report. That the government takes measures to speed up permit processes is rather something that both voters, the business community, and political parties have demanded for a long time. It is a task that unfortunately was neglected for eight years. Even though investigations were commissioned in the area, action was not taken on the conclusions that followed from them. I hope that Rickard Nordin can view what this government is doing in the area positively.

To move on to the question, the Sweden Democrats have, just as Rickard Nordin mentioned, long advocated for a regionalization of property tax for both power production facilities and industrial facilities.

We have also wanted to see the mineral fee expanded and that a larger share of it accrues to the affected community. If the fee ultimately is to accrue to the municipality or the region, it is certainly possible to redistribute it, if I am honest, but the principle from the Sverigedemokraterna's side even in this case is that a larger part of the added value created locally at the expense of intrusion in some sense – be it a mine establishment, a power grid facility, a hydropower plant, or a wind power facility – should accrue to the local area in one way or another. This is the Sverigedemokraterna's principled position.

I also know that there are a number of discussions ongoing at the ministry, not exclusively limited to this case but in a broader scope. Now we have debated wind power quite a bit in the last few hours, and it is a typical area where we need to review how the region that is affected can be compensated for the power production, with the environmental encroachments that will inevitably occur in and with its establishment.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I believe that the Centre Party and the Sweden Democrats have very much the same views here, and I hope that there is a push when it comes to the electricity grid so that it does not stop at just wind power. It concerns the entire energy system. We shall work in a technology-neutral manner. I believe we are in agreement on this.

I have another question that perhaps relates more to the specific matter. Now the government proposes that part of the responsibility for setting criteria regarding specifically technology choices should be transferred from the Riksdag to the government. There is a considerable concern, not least in the Swedish countryside, that it will now become easier to override landowners when it comes, above all, to mandate air routes without any consequence analyses or clear alternative investigations.

Can Tobias Andersson calm their concern and say that there will not be more carte blanche for running air traffic and that they will continue to have clear criteria and that it must also be shown that what is being built is socio-economically profitable?

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you again for the question, Rickard Nordin! I believe that Rickard Nordin has some understanding that it will not be I, as an individual member, who will ultimately have to handle the conflicts of interest that inevitably arise in these types of matters, when by definition an intrusion on a landowner's land needs to occur to enable an electricity grid expansion that benefits society in a broader sense.

I have full confidence in the department which is now given an expanded mandate to do this. It is possible that Rickard Nordin asks the same question to someone from the party that holds ownership of this department, and it is possible that the member, in that case, can give a more party-political comment on this.

But it is clear that regardless of this change, there will be a legally secure process. This has not been removed just because we have moved it down from the Electricity Act and the Environmental Code in order to more easily be able to utilize the technological developments that will come. In that case, it becomes a bit unnecessary to have it stipulated at the legislative level. It is better that we move it down to a regulation and move a larger mandate to the government in order to speed up these processes.

Then I cannot help but, Madam Speaker, highlight the fact that Rickard Nordin and I have somewhat different views on which types of power will contribute the most in the future. It is clear that the wind power expansion that Rickard Nordin wants to see, with up to 100 terawatt-hours over five to six years, will require a very large expansion of the electricity grid.

It is clear that if one were to build a series of nuclear reactors in connection with, for example, the steel projects that are underway, power cables extending perhaps 300 meters would be needed. If we are to build wind turbines throughout Norrland to meet LKAB's needs, miles and miles of power grids would be needed at costs in the trillions, as is often discussed. This will result in a significantly greater intrusion upon private landowners than what would have occurred with our energy policy.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! The bill we are now considering is actually another example of the slow handling of the government's proposals. The investigation on which the bill is based has been completed for quite some time, and yet it is delayed before the proposals are laid on the floor of the Riksdag.

Just as in the previous bill, the government is also presenting proposals without providing sensible underlying data and directions. Yes, the electricity grid needs to be expanded significantly. Yes, it must happen quickly. It would also be good if the government could be clear about which criteria will be used when decisions are to be made. Now, the government is asking the Riksdag for full freedom to decide for itself how it should proceed when, for example, technology choices are to be established. Transparency and predictability suffer, and the possibility to influence decreases.

It is not a bad idea for the government to be able to decide faster, and therefore we support the bill as such. But it cannot be up to the government's discretion within which frameworks it should occur. Therefore, the government should return with significantly clearer criteria, and therefore I move for approval of the reservation based on the motion that we in Centerpartiet raised.

A clear direction was needed. We need to utilize the grid we have significantly smarter. It is built for the peak load hour, that is, the hour per year when we use the most electricity. In all other hours, we do not use the grid to its full extent. There is, therefore, incredibly much more potential remaining.

It is also possible to do much more than just expand the grid, which actually—if one had accounted for other infrastructure—is the last thing one should do. The best thing is to utilize what one has significantly smarter by preventing, expanding, and utilizing the grid at other times. When we then do come to expanding, we can build more vertically, build more in existing cable corridors, co-lay cables with other infrastructure, utilize the grid more flexibly and increase efficiency.

We in Centerpartiet talk about using space-saving technology to reduce the intrusion on the countryside, and we are concerned that the government will not go that way. The vulnerability in the grid needs to be reduced. Today, anyone with a large hacksaw or a bit of explosives on their back can fairly easily knock out quite large parts of Sweden's electricity system by simply cutting a number of power poles.

Based on the answers that the government and the minister have given to the written questions we have submitted, it is clear that they refuse to take this into account. It also shows that the concern we are raising is justified, even though the Sverigedemokraterna in the previous exchange of remarks could not answer regarding the details.

The electricity grid regulation is today primarily driving towards expansion, and it is insane. It will result in increased costs that will land on households and companies, which lowers Swedish competitiveness. The grid will need to be expanded, but the existing grid also needs to be used more smartly.

Conditional agreements must become the standard. That is already the case in the Netherlands. Microgrids must be facilitated, and already environmentally approved grids must be exempt from concession. Compensation issues need to be handled. Landowners and neighbors need to be compensated better. Planning needs to be strengthened, and there we can once again look towards Finland. New technology needs to be accepted by both the government and the Armed Forces. The multi-billion SEK bottleneck revenues held by the National Debt Office must start being used. Use them to connect new electricity production, regardless of the form! It would significantly speed up the expansion of electricity.

The reports are thick with the fact that we risk hitting the ceiling. Svenska kraftnät's plans are insufficient. I have said it before: on the west coast, the capacity will need to be doubled as early as 2030 so that jobs are not threatened. I will hold the government personally responsible if it does not meet the needs we see now, because all reports are clear. There are no excuses. The proposals exist, but they must be put forward.

These things might not be the most fun to prioritize and drive in an election campaign, where it is easier to talk about big hits, but this is what is needed. If the government cannot manage it, it must hand it over to someone who is prepared to make a difference and who understands that powerful investments in the near term are what is needed - for the jobs, for competitiveness, and for reduced emissions. We are ready to take that responsibility. Now it is up to the government.

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

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Industry's report NU15 A clearer process for the permit assessment of electricity grids.

The energy system lays the foundation for modern society and is central to Sweden's development, jobs, and welfare. We have begun an electrification of our society where we electrify both transport, industrial processes, and other things. Electrification is crucial for us to reach our climate goals and for our industry to be competitive and create new jobs.

Access to fossil-free electricity is important for the companies that are now investing in our entire country. We have an electricity system in Sweden that is already virtually entirely fossil-free. Now we are going to plan for a doubling of energy consumption, and then our system needs to be expanded. This applies to both production and the power grid. The bill that we are debating here today is therefore truly welcome. Finally, I say - the proposals have been sitting finished for two years and gathering dust. The investigation Right for the Climate was completed in 2022.

We support the proposals in the government bill to shorten the permit processes for the construction of electricity grids. As we said, we had hoped they would arrive earlier, but better late than never. We also point this out in our special statement.

Permit processes, and not just when it concerns the electricity grid, seem to be a never-ending story here in the Riksdag. In the debate before this, we heard how important it is to expand the electricity system, and if we are to reach the planning goal of 300 terawatt-hours by 2045, we need to pick up the pace. Unfortunately, there are no clear commitments for the next five to ten years. If we do not reach production in the coming years, we will miss out on investments and jobs.

We want to remove the connection fees for offshore wind power to achieve more production, which this government says no to. We truly regret that. To manage the expansion of production and the grid, we also need to work with skills supply, which today is an additional bottleneck. We also need to work with the acceptance for the construction of the power grid. Today, there are often large protests and appeals, which makes it take a very long time to build the power grid.

Madam Speaker! The suitability assessment is welcome and is believed to lead to shorter lead times and more efficient processes. It is about ensuring that a line is socio-economically profitable, about ensuring a secure and sufficient electricity supply, and about satisfying an important interest.

The proposition also contains proposals regarding the choice of technology. Should it be underground or overhead cable? The Government proposes that the construction of overhead lines or underground or submarine cables should be regulated at a lower level than in law. The Government proposes that it should be authorized to issue regulations in a decree on under which conditions a line should be constructed as an overhead line or as an underground or submarine cable.

The third proposal is that the construction and maintenance of high-voltage power lines with a grid concession for the line are exempted from the Environmental Code's prohibition against impact on areas covered by general biotope protection or shore protection.

As has been said, it is good that the proposals are on the Riksdag's table today, but they could have been here much earlier. It actually would have made a difference for Sweden.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! As compensation for my long speech last time, I shall be significantly more concise this time, so that we will get home at some point.

This is a step in the right direction or a step forward. We stand behind the proposal to shorten the permit processes for electricity grids. It is very important, and the background to that need we have debated extensively today. It is about clearing the way for the green industrial transition and the climate transition. But I still want to take the opportunity to emphasize that this is too little and too late. It has taken almost two years just to produce this. We also think that the proposal leaves a lot to be desired and therefore stand behind reservation 1.

Above all, on the theme of accelerating and facilitating the green industrial transition and the expansion of the electricity system, I would like to take the opportunity to request a few more proposals from the government. Solar power is advancing rapidly, and there we would need policies to be able to accelerate connection possibilities and clarify guidelines for where solar power can be built.

We have a completed investigation, a strategy, for Swedish combined heat and power and district heating. There are many good proposals there that I hope we will soon have on the Riksdag's table as an important contribution to Sweden's energy system.

We would also need a significantly better process for how grid connections are to be distributed, and in previous motions we have submitted proposals that social benefit and climate benefit should govern to a greater extent. Svenska kraftnät has taken a first step in being able to steer according to maturity level, but we see that more needs to be done to achieve the correct prioritization in access to capacity. An extreme case: If we are to connect a new hospital or a computer hall to produce bitcoin, there is currently no prioritization, but rather it is more or less first in the queue that counts. There we see that steering is needed.

Just as has been requested previously, much faster decision-making and permit processes for offshore wind are needed, and we hope that this will come soon.

Last but not least: Implement the EU's directive on renewable energy, which among other things specifies time limits for permit processing, and ensure fast permit processes for the upgrading and repowering of existing wind farms.

These are some processes that would need to go much faster than they do today. This is, however, a step in the right direction.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin my speech on the permit process for electricity grids by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

Madam Speaker! This is a report dealing with a proposition that is not only an expression of an administrative ambition but a mirror of a delayed necessity. While this government effectively accelerates and rationalizes the processes for permit reviews of electricity grids, which is crucial for strengthening our infrastructure and meeting future energy needs, one cannot quite ignore that such measures would have been at least equally relevant and necessary during the previous years of government. The improvements being proposed are crucial, but they also highlight a legacy of inefficiency and procrastination under the previous red-green government.

Madam Speaker! It is evident that the previous government not only missed the chance but also ignored the acute need to modernize and streamline permit processes that are crucial for the energy transition and climate work. To, at this stage in its specific statement, state that one is "critical that the government delayed far too long in presenting this bill to the Riksdag" is undeniably farcical and yet another attempt to gloss over previous mistakes and shortcomings.

What is it then that has taken so long to implement, Madam Speaker? This bill highlights technical adjustments such as overhead lines versus ground or sea cables and simplifications in the environmental assessment process. These are adjustments that are necessary to accelerate the expansion and maintenance of high-voltage power lines. These points that are now being prioritized clearly reflect previous neglect regarding the creation of a smooth and sustainable approach for our national power grid.

The proposed law underlines that previous administrative processes have been far too bureaucratic and time-consuming, which has hindered the development of necessary infrastructure. These delays have not only been administrative failures but also missed opportunities at a time when both Sweden and the world face increased energy needs in the transition and in the ongoing work to strengthen Swedish industry's competitiveness.

This bill recognizes and addresses these deficiencies. By simplifying and clarifying the criteria for permit processes, for example the requirements for biotope protection and shoreline protection, the bill takes an important step towards ensuring that our energy system can be developed quickly and efficiently without unnecessary obstacles. This reform is not only a correction of previous excessive regulation but also a necessary adaptation to the ongoing energy transition. It is central that the state's efforts and regulatory framework promote a cost-effective expansion of the electricity grid in precisely that transition.

It should also be said that the government has now tasked an investigator to review the compensation given for the surrender of land in connection with the expansion of the electricity grid. Property rights are a self-evident cornerstone of Moderate politics and for the policy of my Tidö colleagues. Reviewing and improving the compensations paid to property owners is an important part of increasing the acceptance of the unavoidable encroachments that infrastructure projects actually entail. Fair and sufficient compensation must ensure that property owners feel compensated in a way that reflects the sacrifices they make. This is crucial to enable the rapid and efficient expansion of the electricity grid, which in turn is required to support Sweden's increasing needs.

Madam Speaker! This bill is, in summary, not just an attempt to rectify previous errors but a vital component in Sweden's pursuit of a sustainable and competitive energy future. By critically examining and reforming the permit processes that previous governments have neglected, the current government contributes not only to a more efficient energy policy but also to a more robust, wealthier, and less over-bureaucratized and complicated society.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! There are quite a few proposals regarding shortening permit processes that are on the government's desk. This was one of them; it is good that it has been brought forward. But others have also appeared during this government's time in power.

One of them concerns internal networks in connection with electricity production and that they should be exempt from concession if they are, for example, connected to hydrogen production. It could be a wind farm that wants to produce when electricity prices are low or a nuclear or hydropower plant that wants to focus on precisely hydrogen production. There are examples of all of them, so the power source is irrelevant in this context.

There are examples of companies that have wanted to run a 30-meter long line from their electricity production to the hydrogen production but have not been granted permission for this because the regulatory framework does not allow it. If you are forced out onto the grid, outside your own meter, to then buy back the electricity, you will not only have problems with the EU regulations concerning how you are to produce the hydrogen, but you will also have problems with your entire business model. We know that a very large amount of hydrogen is needed specifically in the industry, even though we previously heard that Mats Green was a bit skeptical about that.

The existing regulatory framework is therefore threatening our competitiveness and industrial jobs completely unnecessarily. There are proposed amendments lying on the government's desk, so my question is very simple: Do the Moderates think that this type of network should be subject to a concession requirement or not?

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! I can answer generally that we naturally want to continue to reform and simplify regarding the expansion of the electricity grid and all other energy expansion. This is only a first part of everything that is now underway.

When it comes to the concrete question, we will take a position when it arises – I cannot answer what the consequences would be in other and third-hand in that case. But as a general starting point, we want to simplify as much as possible, as early as possible, and as broadly as possible.

I also hope that we will be able to get support from Centerpartiet, even though I would have wished that you had been clearer on this during previous government periods when you had a decisive influence on the government policy being conducted at that time. But better late than never!

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! That influence ensured that we obtained the investigation that the government is now presenting a bill on. I have personally seen to it that this is carried out. Mats Green, therefore, does not need to be so worried about this. I also highlighted a number of simplifications in my speech.

However, I become a little worried when Mats Green says "we will take it when it comes." The proposal is already on the government's table. The Energy Markets Inspectorate has already requested these changes. They have already proposed this; thus, the proposal has already arrived. The big question therefore becomes: Do the Moderates think that one should have concession-obligated networks? Even though they are already environmentally tested and it is only about a 30-meter long power line, this risks overturning the entire business model for the hydrogen production industry. Yes or no? It is a fairly simple question.

It is about Swedish competitiveness and Swedish industrial jobs. For me, it is completely obvious that Svef and Rabbalshede Kraft, which have been rejected, should be granted permits. But then the regulatory framework must be changed, and it needs to be changed now so that we can start manufacturing hydrogen, which is needed.

I repeat my question: Do the Moderates think that internal networks of this type should be subject to a concession requirement or not? It is a very simple question. One can answer yes or no.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! The previous government refused to implement the regulatory simplifications that we are now implementing. Furthermore, it was we who pushed this through the Riksdag with willing assistance from Rickard Nordin, it should be said. But that government refused, as stated, to implement any of what we are now implementing.

Regarding regulatory simplifications in general, this is, as I said before, only the beginning. The more regulatory simplifications, the better, but then one must also start going into depth. The Environmental Code needs to be reformed, as it puts up too many stops. I am still waiting for the Centerpartiet to open up for that. We have seen none of that so far, instead they have joined forces with Miljöpartiet. They need to let go of Miljöpartiet's arm and realize that rigid, stiff Swedish regulations seriously need to be opened up for this to proceed as quickly as possible.

I welcome Rickard Nordin and Centerpartiet to the insight. But do not just stand here and talk about it, but also start delivering and providing support for such proposals when they come! I can reassure the members that such proposals will come, in contrast to under the previous government, which Rickard Nordin shielded.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I must say as Linus Lakso: Now I will give back if I went over the allotted time in my previous speech. I guarded myself when I signed up for this debate with eight minutes in case I would not have time to clarify my positions in the previous debate.

In any case, this debate is about changing the law to create a clearer process for the permit review of electricity grids. In the previous [speech], I have stood behind the committee's proposal that the Riksdag should adopt the legislative proposals contained in the bill A clearer process for permit review of electricity grids. But I want to clarify my fundamental view that electricity grids should be seen as a socially important infrastructure and, naturally, be protected accordingly. The state, the societal, must in my opinion be more involved in the expansion of the electricity grids.

In the proposition, a bill is submitted that aims to contribute to a clearer and faster process for renewing, reinforcing, and expanding the electricity grid. I agree with the government that the processes for renewing, reinforcing, and expanding the electricity grid need to become more efficient. This has been discussed for a long time, even in other government constellations.

The lack of grid capacity means that there is a power shortage in several parts of the country, and transmission capacity therefore needs to be expanded quickly. At the same time, I want to emphasize the importance of the permit processes being conducted in a legally secure manner and that consideration for natural values, other industries, and biodiversity is taken into account on a case-by-case basis.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the bill and the committee report A clearer process for permit assessment of electricity grids, a proposal that I feel has been requested by practically all parties in the Swedish Riksdag. We talked about it throughout the entire last parliamentary term, and we have talked about it during this parliamentary term.

I want to proceed from a completely different perspective during the debate and speak about something that is not common to debate in our specific committee.

Let us think back a few years. News began to emerge about a strange flu-like disease over in China. They were short notices at the end of the news broadcasts. After that, there were reports from the neighboring countries. Then it grew, and before we knew it, most things had been turned upside down.

We all have our own relationship to the emergence of the pandemic and all the measures that began to be taken. There was no map to navigate by, and all countries groped their way through uncharted territory. But immense resources were allocated, and we saw fast-tracks without equal in the fight to develop a vaccine against the new mysterious disease.

Sweden was no exception, but we did as others did. The government at the time - with full support from us in the opposition at the time - decided that no means should be spared in the work to produce a vaccine. Our membership in the EU served us well, and we got to prove to ourselves that politicians can deliver when they decide to do so.

But let us also remind ourselves who did what. Politics decided: Give the people vaccines! Politics arranged the funding. But politics did not decide how the vaccine should be developed. Politics let the researchers do their job and gave them the resources to be able to do the job.

Imagine if we in the Riksdag had debated whether mRNA vaccines are better than protein-based vaccines. It just makes your eyes go dark just thinking about it. It would have been quite stupid.

Madam Speaker! I will think of this unexpectedly on a day like this, when we are now to decide on a clarified process for the granting of permits for electricity grids. We have a large majority in the chamber for the government's wise and well-balanced proposal. Even though it is not as dramatic a question as combating a pandemic, I am pleased with the broad majority. Well-functioning electricity grids are a hygiene factor if we are to manage our transition to climate neutrality, and it is very good that we have a consensus based on facts and reality.

We must have politicians who decide that it is important to offer vaccines. We must not have politicians who think they can decide which vaccine is best. We must have politicians who create the conditions for a world-class electricity system, who provide the necessary resources and who create a legal framework that leads to the politically decided goal. But we must not have politicians who think they know how to build an electricity grid. We can therefore manage without the reservation from C and MP.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! In the bill we are now debating, the government submits legislative proposals aimed at contributing to a clearer and faster process for renewing, reinforcing, and expanding the electricity grid. This is, of course, excellent. It is also a proposal that is a step in the government's work to achieve permit processes that are modern, efficient, and predictable.

It must be easy to be able to start and run businesses with great social benefit. In the same way, it must be easy to expand the energy system and infrastructure, which are absolutely crucial for both transition and prosperity. We know that a large part of the industry stands ready to make very large investments for the climate transition that are important for our path towards net-zero emissions. Therefore, bureaucracy must not put spokes in the wheels of development.

In Sweden, we have today a number of different obstacles that hinder growth in Sweden. One of these is that it takes a very long time to get permits for various things, including permits to build electricity grids.

Many companies testify that permit processes are a major obstacle when they want to transition their operations. Costly, protracted, and unpredictable environmental assessments risk leading to investments becoming much more expensive than originally planned. The problems that the permit processes cause today can even scare away investors and industrial establishments from Sweden. We naturally want to avoid that.

One of the reasons why the permit processes for electricity grids take a long time is that Sweden has strong environmental legislation, which is of course good. It is even a competitive advantage for Swedish companies. We see this, for example, in the demand for fossil-free products. It is therefore not that we have environmental legislation that is the problem; it is how it is interpreted and implemented that has consequences. For that very reason, the processes must become simpler and more efficient.

The Environmental Code was established 25 years ago. Society looked completely different back then. We did not have the same understanding of the difference between environment and climate and the importance of specifically climate as we have today. Through this proposal for faster and more efficient permit processes, we have the opportunity to take advantage of the opportunities that exist within, for example, Swedish industry to increase the pace of the climate transition. We shall maintain the overall purpose of, for example, environmental assessments, while the permit processes are to be streamlined.

Madam Speaker! Industry stands ready to make large investments. We are heading towards net-zero in a tangible future. Bureaucracy must not put spokes in the wheels of that work. Through the changes that the government is now pushing through, we contribute to better conditions for industry, for climate transition, and for Sweden's growth and prosperity. I therefore move for approval of the proposal in the Committee on Industry's report.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 29 May.)

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