Energy

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the proposal in the report that we are now going to debate regarding expenditure area 21 Energy.

It is the second time ever that the Sweden Democrats have no reservation or any specific statement in the report, and the reason for this is historical. For the first time since entering the Riksdag, the Sweden Democrats have had a close cooperation with the sitting government, a cooperation that has led to a detailed agreement, the Tidö Agreement, in which we, together with the three government parties, have charted the way forward on central areas for Sweden. This concerns, among other things, crime and immigration, but it also concerns energy policy—the area that we are addressing here today. Before I go into more detail on that, I thought I would start at the other end.

Mr. Speaker! My mother grew up in the 1940s. She actually grew up here in Stockholm, more specifically in Östermalm. It may sound very fine, but it wasn't. The conditions were very simple. By today's standards, we would probably say it was poor. One had a tile stove for heating and an outhouse in the courtyard, and it was not always the case that one could go to bed full in the evening. The situation was, however, not unique for my mother but belonged to the ordinary.

Energy

What happened next? Well, she grew up and got the opportunity to attend the world's best school—a school with a focus on knowledge, discipline, and good values. Not everything was perfect, of course, but it laid the foundation for what would eventually put Sweden on the world map. Sweden went, in a few decades, from being a country with a simple standard and hungry stomachs to becoming a successful, modern export nation with a high standard of living and welfare as a result. The small country in the north had suddenly become a country that people looked at and looked up to.

How was this possible, Mr. Speaker? The reasons are, of course, several: external circumstances, natural resources, a relatively well-educated and industrious population, skilled innovators, as well as the fact that for decades Sweden was governed by politicians who understood the importance of having a secure, safe, and affordable electricity production.

The investments in predictable, low-carbon, and large-scale energy have laid the foundation for competitiveness, which in turn has laid the foundation for jobs and prosperity. Our unique energy mix, where fossil-free hydropower and nuclear power have formed the base, gave us a head start compared to the rest of the world for a long time.

As a conservative, I live by the motto of not destroying what works and not tearing down what has taken many decades to build up. It is among other reasons why I look back with horror at the irresponsible energy policy of recent decades. What on earth happened?

Common sense and concern for Sweden were traded for pink castles in the air and naivety, power became more important than the citizens and the peripheral C and MP were left to manage the energy policy, a policy built on the delusion that it always blows just enough, that electricity production does not need to be able to be planned, that the storage possibilities and the transmission capacity are enormous and that the citizens would pay for the party without protest, with sky-high electricity bills, risk of disconnection and destroyed natural values as a consequence.

With everything from subsidies and punitive taxes to restrictions, political action has been taken to favor wind power and shut down nuclear power. Despite all the talk about technology neutrality and that "it is up to the market," the previous government has pursued a policy that has now created a situation, especially in southern and central Sweden, where one day is characterized by high exports at dumped prices and the next day is characterized by a power shortage and EU price records. Predictability, competitiveness, self-sufficiency, and household finances are soon simply gone with the wind, literally.

Last year at the same time, my predecessor Mattias Bäckström Johansson stood here and provided a clarification of the objectives for the appropriations that were in the then current proposition. He spoke already then about volatile prices, power shortages, the risk of energy poverty, and the incompatibility of wanting to double electricity production to achieve extensive electrification and simultaneously shutting down further planned large-scale power production.

Now, a year later, I stand here and can only state that the situation has worsened further. Svenska kraftnät warns of power shortages and is planning for disconnections. The risk levels have been raised, and everyone is urged to help by reducing electricity consumption.

The shutdown of Swedish nuclear power, combined with Putin's warfare, Germany's transition from planned to weather-dependent, as well as the interconnection with a faltering European energy market, has made us very vulnerable.

Mr. Speaker! Unlike my predecessor, I do not need to once again stand and speak about what needs to be done to once again achieve a functioning energy system with high security of supply and competitive prices. I do not need to tell an uncomprehending government base what needs to be done. Now I can instead, with a sigh of relief, state that our proposals for concrete measures now form part of the action plan that will result from the agreement we have concluded with the newly appointed government.

With and including the Tidö Agreement, it is the end of pink dreams and castles in the air. The paradigm shift is very clear. Swedish energy policy shall from now on be characterized by realism and long-term perspective, not by naivety and short-sightedness.

The coming months, and probably years, will however be about minimizing the risk of disconnections as well as mitigating the effects of skyrocketing electricity prices for households and companies. But in parallel with this work, the return to a stable, predictable, and affordable energy mix begins. This involves, among other things, giving nuclear power the opportunity to be operated further and developed, safeguarding hydropower, expanding transmission capacity, increasing the power reserve, taking advantage of the possibilities of combined heat and power, improving energy efficiency, using wind power where it is needed, and reviewing pricing models. We have some tough years ahead of us.

Mr. Speaker! The coming winter may be dark. But with the Tidö Agreement, there is hope for significantly brighter times ahead.

In conclusion, I would like to thank everyone for a good job in the committees and wish everyone, despite any potential differences of opinion, a very Merry Christmas.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! The member is speaking about the small, small country in the north. It is not a particularly small country. It is a fairly large country, and we have incredible areas of forest. In the countryside, people work in forestry, in agriculture, and with a lot of other tasks.

I intended to ask the member about the reduction obligation, which is part of the energy system. Let me start at one end. When it comes to climate measures, it was already shown in 2005 by the Stern Commission in England that it is cheaper to take measures against the climate than to refrain from doing so. In Sweden, we have the available forest.

You want to reduce the reduction obligation to the EU's minimum level, while at the same time we need a green transition. We can create jobs in Sweden with the forest. We can use the forest's raw materials to, so to speak, put them in our cars and mix them into the gasoline. Then we get jobs and the business sector can develop, not just in big cities but also in the countryside. It is, at the very least, a Swedish domestic raw material. Unlike gasoline and diesel, which you want to favor, you therefore want to disadvantage a Swedish fuel. For a moment, I thought you were called the Sverigedemokraterna and that you in some way wanted to favor Swedish raw materials and Swedish conditions.

My question to you is: How do you reconcile this? Do you stand behind Sweden's climate goals, and do you think that domestic biofuels can play a decisive role in reaching the goals?

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the questions. There were a number of them at the end.

We are very far ahead in this transition that everyone is talking about. We have paved the way for this transition for decades thanks to our fantastic energy mix, which has now, however, been on the verge of being dismantled.

When it comes to the reduction obligation, we are now seeing the skyrocketing inflation, and we actually see how the rural areas that the member speaks of are going to their knees. Small businesses, trucking companies, the transport sector, the agricultural sector, and ordinary people who have to take the car to work are going to their knees and are going under. How could you have missed that? And all this is happening so that we should go to the forefront and have the most offensive reduction obligation in the entire EU. You also want to double it. We are at just over 30 percent now. You want up to 60 percent. What would that mean for fuel prices? You completely break the countryside with this policy. There are many sectors to distribute an emission reduction on. One does not need to punish out just this part at the current time.

I will provide some trivia. We do not have domestic production today, but the majority of the bio-part, so to speak, in the fuel consists of slaughterhouse waste from, for example, Australia. That does not sound particularly climate-friendly to my ears.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the answer.

The other day there was an interview with Scania's CEO Christian Levin in Dagens Nyheter. He said that the industry cannot afford cowardly climate politicians. Biofuels must be favored and fossil fuels punished. Now it is exactly the opposite. The industry cannot afford cowardly climate politicians.

If we are to support a green transition of society, we must use our biofuels. We cannot favor fossil fuels. How can it benefit the countryside in the long term that we do not use branches, tops, and logging residues from the forest? How can it not benefit the countryside that we do? It will create jobs in the countryside, and we will also get a green transition and reach our climate goals.

I do not understand how the member is reasoning. It is very short-sighted to imagine that we should reduce the price of diesel and gasoline. But in the long term, it disadvantages the people in the countryside. How is the member reasoning?

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member again.

If we break the countryside, if we break the fields, if we break the business and if we break agriculture, it doesn't matter if in ten years we can produce biofuels in the way the member advocates. We are here and now. We are facing an enormous crisis. Now, this is what matters in the short term.

Speaking of the fact that we cannot afford cowardly politicians, cowardly climate investments, or as the member expressed it, the risk is that we make the same mistake we made with methanol and plow billions into something that will never ever become profitable - billion after billion in taxes. This waste is still ongoing.

This is about seeing everything as a whole. There are other sectors where we can certainly reduce emissions to compensate. We must be realistic. And that is Sverigedemokratisk policy.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Now it is this that matters in the short term, Jessica Stegrud just said in the exchange of remarks. I will also take up that ball.

Vladimir Putin's energy war plagues European and Swedish households and companies. That is why many listened to the election promise from the Sweden Democrats, the Moderates, the Liberals, and the Christian Democrats regarding a high-cost protection against high energy prices that would be in place by November 1 this year, a date that has, as is well known, passed. This promise and a good deal of others have thus been broken. No high-cost protection will be in place by Christmas either, despite the promise from the Prime Minister that the households' finances would be saved well in advance of Christmas.

Furthermore, it is the case that the proposal that the government is moving forward with - and which might perhaps be paid out sometime later this winter, if nothing unforeseen occurs - does not cover all of Sweden, which we also heard about in a recent exchange of remarks. The northern part of the country will not receive a share of the resources that southern Sweden is to receive. Despite the large-scale promises, no companies, either in the north or in the south, have received any notification as to when they can expect support from the government.

My question to Jessica Stegrud is therefore about and, if so, when one comes with a proposal that also helps those households located in northern Sweden who also have a need for help and support in this situation.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the question. It is a very difficult time we find ourselves in; that is something we completely agree on.

The proposal that is now on the table is the answer to the request you made weeks before the election, Fredrik Olovsson. When the proposal finally came from Svenska kraftnät, we had two possibilities. One was to send it back for reconsideration, whereby this would be delayed for a few more months, and the other was to use the proposal that you ordered.

It is possible that you would have dragged it out for a few months, or else you would have used the proposal that you actually ordered yourselves. It is not perfect, it has its flaws. The advantage compared to what applied last year is, however, that we can now pay out the support faster. This can arrive as early as sometime in February, while the support for the previous winter actually reached some consumers during the summer. I would therefore like to assert that this is still a better proposal for the households.

When it comes to the companies and the messages there, this concerns matters that are regulated by the EU and which must be examined. It is not just a matter of producing a proposal and then implementing it; that is something you have ensured, among other things, with all the power transfer to the EU, Fredrik Olovsson. You perhaps should talk to yourselves a little bit on that question.

I think we have been fast enough. One must be honest and say that the price development in the northern part of Sweden has occurred recently. It is not something that has applied for the entire year, but on the contrary, southern Sweden has averaged twice as high as northern Sweden. But should this unfortunate situation continue, I am quite sure that the government will produce a supplementary proposal. However, work is now being done very hard to get what is on the table done and to help households and companies as quickly as possible.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! There is nothing in the previous government's mandate to Svenska kraftnät that prevents households in northern Sweden from also being able to receive a share of the money. There is also nothing that prevents a government from taking measures. It is not as if it stands in the Instrument of Government that it is Svenska kraftnät that shall rule the country, but it is the government. When one receives proposals, one must of course adapt them according to one's political views.

Now it does not seem to be the case that they want to help northern Sweden. It may be that the government puts forward such a proposal, but the Sverigedemokraterna do not, therefore, have any such demands on the government. They content themselves instead with breaking the election promise they made, that is, compensation by November 1 – a promise which also did not contain any disclaimer that half of Sweden would not receive a share of the support.

The question remains: When will the Sweden Democrats demand that such support be put in place? Because it is needed now.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, the assignment clearly stated that it was the southern parts of Sweden that were to be covered and nothing else. Perhaps that is what you want to add now in hindsight, Fredrik Olovsson.

Indirectly, you may also have answered my question: The proposal would have had to go out for consultation and come back in maybe - what do I know - December or January, and then you would have started from that. It obviously would not have gone any faster.

Then I still think it is a bit charming that the Social Democrats care so incredibly much about our policy. We can take the reduction obligation and fuel prices, for example: You want to make it even more expensive. You want to double the reduction obligation and thereby make the fuel perhaps 5-10 kronor more expensive. With your policy, it would have thus become significantly worse, and considering the distances in Norrland, I do not think that present would have been welcome.

We cannot build a policy on a few weeks of price developments; I believe even the Social Democrats understand that. It is not responsible. But if the development continues in this direction, I am completely convinced that measures will also be taken for the northern part of the country.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I am reflecting a bit on some things I heard in the member's speech.

The description of the situation in the energy sector differs from how I perceive the situation to be. The fact is that a war is ongoing in our absolute vicinity in Europe, and it is essentially an energy war against Europe. Furthermore, 40 percent of the reactors in France are at a standstill. It is therefore the type of energy that you say has high security of supply, Jessica Stegrud. In Sweden, O3 has several at a standstill. I therefore question this regarding the security of supply in that energy source.

Well! Now you have the power, Jessica Stegrud. We have a group of industries that are undergoing a green transition. They are working full-scale with that transition, and they need new energy. How will that need be met if we do not invest in, for example, offshore and onshore wind power? Does the member believe that there will be new nuclear power on site in Sweden within five years? And will you support an approval of the applications for offshore wind power that are on the government's desk?

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We can start with nuclear power. I can mention that it is true that O3 is down for revision. It is a planned shutdown - which is the difference compared to wind power, which cannot be planned. If it blows or does not blow, it cannot be planned, but a shutdown for revision can actually be planned.

A bit of trivia, besides: I have worked with all the power plants, and two years ago O3's production was in the top ten of all reactors in the world. It produced energy equivalent to approximately one million households, so it has made a very good contribution to the Swedish electricity supply.

That one now has generic problems within French nuclear power is of course regrettable. One cannot stay at 100 percent availability, but if one shuts down half of the nuclear fleet, the risks naturally increase because one soon does not have much redundancy left.

The members of the committee also asked if new nuclear power can be in place within five to ten years. I would say that ten years is not completely unrealistic. Five years would, of course, be very tough, because we have dismantled the resources for that. We also have legislation that stands in the way and many other obstacles. Nuclear reactors have also been decommissioned due to the political conditions under which nuclear power has operated.

Then there was a third question that I do not remember, Mr. Speaker. The member may ask it again if it is important.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, I wondered if the member and her party will support the approval of the applications for offshore wind power that are on the government's table. These applications correspond to an enormous amount of energy, which is needed in, for example, Västra Götaland, which is an area for large-scale investments. This also applies to the east coast and in the southern parts of Sweden.

Will the member and the member's party stand behind and support an approval of these applications that are on the government's table?

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the clarification regarding the question.

Now, it is like this: If it is not blowing - well, then it is not blowing. Whether one has one or ten thousand wind turbines, it doesn't really matter if it is not blowing. We do not need masses of non-dispatchable energy; what we need is dispatchable energy. We need inertia, and we need large generators. That is what the industry demands and needs. With the benefit of hindsight, we obviously would not have decommissioned either the Ringhals or Barsebäck reactors. It is very clear today.

It is not the Sweden Democrats who are sitting and deciding which wind farms should be built or not. It is clear that wind power has its part in the system. Wind power must, however, begin to operate on competition-neutral and technology-neutral terms.

That has not been the case. It has been subsidized with, for example, the electricity certificates. It has also not had to pay for the connection costs and the infrastructure that was needed, nor for the load that it causes the system when one cannot run.

There is an opportunity cost there that someone else must bear. Someone else simply must provide the electricity supply when the wind power is down. Wind power has not had to be involved in paying for it.

The answer to your question is that those wind farms that can demonstrate profitability and are compatible with all the environmental requirements we have, with acceptance from residents and municipalities and with consideration for natural values etcetera, obviously have a place in the energy mix. I welcome this.

We must have a policy based on realism where the entire energy system functions in the long term.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is pleasant that we finally get to have an energy policy debate.

Sweden could have a 100 percent renewable electricity system or an electricity system with a large dependence on nuclear power. All parties agree that we need an increased electricity production and that we shall have a sufficient electricity production for all households, all companies, and all operations in Sweden. We shall have a robust and secure electricity system.

It is, however, very clear that the Sweden Democrats want to see a large dependence on nuclear power in the Swedish electricity mix and also heavily subsidize nuclear power with Swedes' tax money, as has been proposed, among other things, in the budget.

I want to ask the Sweden Democrats: How do you wish to solve the dependence on the import of uranium to operate the nuclear power plants? How do you want to solve the interim storage of radioactive waste if we expand nuclear power in Sweden? How do the Sweden Democrats want to solve the final disposal of radioactive waste if we expand the nuclear power plants in Sweden?

I also wonder if the Sweden Democrats want to overturn the law on the ban on uranium mining in Sweden and mine uranium in Sweden. In which regions does one want to do it? How should residents in these regions handle uranium mining in their immediate vicinity?

If one also envisions that we are to have small nuclear reactors, does one imagine that they should be near the cities where we have a higher electricity consumption, or should they be placed in Sweden's rural areas, and how would that then affect the local population?

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, the member, for myriads of questions!

I will start by saying that 100 percent renewable is a complete utopia. It is not technically possible. It does not work anywhere. I cannot swear that it won't work in 100 or 200 years. But we are not quite there yet. The member may be welcome to come back and describe how it would work in practice. There are no such functioning solutions today. They possibly exist on Miljöpartiet's drawing board. I do not know.

Mr. Speaker! Subsidies are also interesting. Miljöpartiet and the member have spoken about it being technology-neutral. That is a very important word. I often hear it from Miljöpartiet, but I have never seen it in practice. As I mentioned just now, renewables and not least wind power have had advantages and been subsidized for a long time now. It is strange that one now cares about technology neutrality and that there should be no subsidies. It is a wish that I actually share.

What we are doing now is that we are issuing credit guarantees. We are changing laws and regulations so that it will be possible to invest in nuclear power for those who want to. I would not call that subsidies. It is simply to compensate for the imbalance that has existed before.

We are talking about interim storage. We have a system today for interim storage. We have also reached decisions here in the Riksdag on how the final repository shall be conducted. There should be no question marks about that. It is sad that we gave up research in this area a long time ago. We probably could have had reactors today with virtually no waste at all. That would have helped significantly.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much!

First and foremost, it is certainly possible to have a 100 percent renewable electricity system. There are several countries that have it. I was in this last time in Agenda. There, we had researchers who clearly explained how a 100 percent renewable electricity system would function and that it is possible. To say that it is not possible is directly misleading. I note that the Sweden Democrats are looking back to the 1950s and the post-war period. If one starts from the technology we had then, it would not have been possible. But in today's situation, it is possible.

I do not think I am getting answers on how to handle, for example, uranium mining in Sweden or a large import dependency to operate the plants. We see the problems in Europe today when we have a large dependency on energy imports from other countries.

When it comes to the final repository, they are handling the decisions that exist that we should phase out nuclear power after the plants that are currently in operation reach the end of their economic lifespan. There are no plans for final repository for the volumes that would exist if one were to significantly expand nuclear power in Sweden.

My question remains. How should one handle uranium mining in Sweden and its consequences? How should one handle the final repository? If one is to build larger intermediate storage, where would they be located in that case?

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member!

That some researchers in Agenda have said that it is entirely possible does not have to mean that reality looks that way. I usually say that wind power's best friend is natural gas. When it is not blowing, you need something else. There is talk of hydrogen storage. We are incredibly far from having it in any necessary quantities. It is completely unrealistic.

Then there is the issue of the dependence on imports. The dismantling of nuclear power in Germany has put the entire EU in a fearsome situation of dependence when it comes to gas from Russia. There is one more anecdote. It was even so that they toasted at the Russian embassy in Berlin on the same day that Germany decided to shut down nuclear power. They understood that they were now making Germany dependent on Russian gas. So much for that independence.

Furthermore, one can trade uranium on a market, for example with Australia. There are democratic countries we have good trade relations with. I do not see the same risks with that. Now we are in a situation where we in Europe are forced to trade liquefied gas from, for example, Qatar. I do not know how good that actually is, as an answer to your question.

These are complex issues that are taken most seriously. Miljöpartiet is solely responsible when it comes to how it is to proceed with 100 percent renewable. It is completely unrealistic. I believe that the Swedish people expect a functioning electricity system moving forward.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Few questions are as topical as the energy situation in Europe and in Sweden. It is also the big question now at the European Council. Putin's violent and illegal war in Ukraine is brutal and is carried out with devastating consequences for an entire population. The Russian president is truly writing himself into history's hall of horrors.

The Russian warfare is also directed towards the rest of Europe, albeit at a completely different level and with different weapons, and then primarily in the energy sector. Last autumn, Putin began to turn the energy taps, with rising gas prices as a consequence and thus also rising prices for electricity across Europe.

Breaking that link and ensuring that the market model in Europe can be adapted to the new situation is an important task for the government. It is something that both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Enterprise must manage to tackle during the Swedish presidency.

This winter is likely to be very tough. It naturally raises questions about broken election promises regarding a high-cost protection against the high energy prices. It also raises a justified anger among broad groups in society. It was supposed to be in place on November 1 according to the promises. It was supposed, as the Prime Minister said before the election, to save household finances well before Christmas. That is not what happened. Now, instead, the high-cost protection is not coming at all, but there will be some other compensation sometime in February or later, but then only for households in southern Sweden. The two northernmost electricity areas will be left out, even though they face similar electricity prices as the consumers in southern Sweden who receive compensation for.

It is time for the government and the Sweden Democrats to produce a support that helps everyone affected and not just some. This debate is also an excellent opportunity for the government parties' representatives to explain how and when they will act to assist electricity consumers also in electricity areas 1 and 2. It would also be good if they could account for when the country's companies can expect to receive any support at all.

The longer the electricity support is delayed, the greater the need for the electricity bill emergency measure with the possibility of installments on electricity bills, which the Minister for Energy and Business himself campaigned on, but which the government now has no proposals to implement.

Until now, it must nevertheless be said, Mr. Speaker, that the production of promises on the right in Swedish politics before the election was enormously higher than the ability to live up to the promises now after the election.

Mr. Speaker! It is, of course, completely central to continue expanding our energy system with more emission-free production and a better capacity for transmission. In recent years, electricity production has increased significantly in Sweden. We belong among Europe's largest electricity exporters. But the pace of the expansion of emission-free electricity production will need to increase even faster so that we can manage the major transition that lies ahead of us when the electrification of both the transport sector and many industrial processes is to be carried out.

Large industrial investments across the country are now in the starting pits. They are waiting, among other things, for information regarding their future electricity supply. The investments will be completely dependent on expanded onshore wind power but perhaps above all offshore.

For us Social Democrats, it is clear that all types of power are needed. Nuclear power, wind power, solar power, and combined heat and power are all important components in a plan for more and cheaper electricity. But for us to maintain the lead in the transition and for the investments and jobs in the green new industrialization to arrive and land in Sweden, it actually requires that new electricity enters the system quickly. In that regard, the government and the Sweden Democrats, or for that matter this budget, do not offer much hope. On the contrary, the right-wing parties have a rarely unfortunate view of wind power. Instead of full speed ahead, it is delay and deterioration that prevails, and that will not do.

The applications for submarine cable installations that are with the government need quick decisions. Sweden also needs a backbone network at sea.

The economic conditions and the rules of the game for offshore wind power need to remain good and stable. Everything else will cost Sweden jobs and welfare.

Mr. Speaker! Are the government parties and the Sweden Democrats prepared to let the investment plans and job plans, which can give us new growth and tens of thousands of jobs in the coming years, be scrapped because they would rather make wind power a part of their culture war?

Energy saving and energy efficiency were also part of the culture war until very recently. The Minister for Energy and Business stood before the choice with a vacuum cleaner in a beautiful winter landscape and mocked the ambition to reduce and streamline energy use. Here in the chamber, the Sweden Democrats and the current government parties used their mandates to cut back on state interventions that could save energy in the budget that was to be decided then.

A party leader's perhaps rare bad sharing images on social media can be laughed at. But the cut in energy efficiency could hardly be worse timed than the one made by the right-wing parties a year ago. In Sweden, we have as a goal to achieve 50 percent more efficient energy use by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. So far, the goal fulfillment is barely 30 percent. To reach the goal, a joint effort is required. It is therefore important that the potential in energy efficiency is great, not least at this price level.

We want the work to continue. We want to increase the subsidy rate in the rotavdrag for services that contribute to energy efficiency. This could, for example, involve installations of new heating systems, replacements of doors and windows, or additional insulation. We believe that the type of support for energy-saving measures in multi-family dwellings that the right-wing parties removed from the budget a year ago should be reintroduced. All households should receive help to become more efficient, not just some.

Mr. Speaker! The energy system is crucial for Sweden's ability to manage both the jobs and the climate transition. We need a significantly increased electricity production in the coming years and have good conditions to see it realized. Investors are queuing to build new electricity production and need to be given the opportunity to do so. There are already applications with Svenska kraftnät to build offshore wind power that can produce at least 350 terawatt-hours of electricity in southern Sweden alone. And even if not all of this can be put in place, there is a great potential here.

A significantly increased electricity production needs to be combined with the initiated and historically large investments and investments in expanding the main grid in Sweden and increasing the transmission capacity. In order for all of this to be able to be put in place faster, permit processes that generally go faster and become more modern and even more efficient are also needed. In our budget alternative, which does not have such great prospects of passing, we also see that relevant authorities such as the county administrative boards receive resources to be able to be faster.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs more electricity and cheap electricity. An important message from the world outside this chamber is that it can happen if there are stable and long-term sustainable rules of the game for those who are to invest. Then a government is needed that puts pride aside and is prepared to conclude broad agreements for Sweden's best, and there we unfortunately seem to have a way to go.

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

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! I actually have a question and then a remark.

Given that we, after the past eight years, have actually crashed one of the world's best-functioning electricity systems, I would like to ask Member Fredrik Olovsson if there is anything in the past eight years of energy policy, which was decided by the Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet, that the Member regrets. Purely spontaneously, one could think that there is an extremely great deal to regret, to put it mildly. But it would be interesting to hear some reflections regarding this. We will, after all, spend a large part of the debate here later talking about the future and about what needs to be done now. It would still be interesting with this small look back. That was the question, Mr. Speaker.

And a small note. When one hears the debate here and also when one hears the public debate, one could believe that there are large differences when it comes to the expenditure area Energy between the Tidö parties and the Social Democrats. In that case, I can only inform any listeners that there are, in fact, no differences at all regarding the appropriations within this expenditure area between the Tidö parties and the Social Democrats.

We heard the member speaking here about an electricity bill emergency. It is not included in the budget, I just want to remind you. The only difference that possibly exists, a difference in quotation marks, is that the Tidö parties' 1.2 billion in energy efficiency grants you have placed in a different expenditure area. Otherwise, there are no differences at all. It would be interesting to hear a small reflection on that as well, Mr. Speaker.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, the differences in the appropriations are not so large – one only has to read the tables – and it does not have to be anything bad. It would be good to have a greater consensus in energy policy in general. I do not see it as a fundamentally large problem.

I think it is regrettable that one does not ensure that those who live in rented apartments or in multi-family buildings also get to be part of a journey where we can improve energy efficiency. It would be good for everyone. We all, and large parts of the Swedish people, have surely learned that what each individual does also matters for everyone else. It is a matter of solidarity to truly ensure that everyone is included.

We also believe that it could be better to use a larger part of the deduction for renovation, so that one does not use those funds to do the most extravagant renovations but instead really concentrates the resources and provides greater support to those who want to save energy. I believe that would be very important.

One regrets very much in life, but it does not help much, because it does not lead forward. What one needs to do is to deal with the problems that we see here and now.

To take something that is positive, I think it was good that we were able to have an energy agreement between our parties a few years ago. It actually laid the foundation for the energy policy that has applied until now. And that is not so bad, since we do want a new such agreement in order to be able to build stable conditions forward. The big problem is probably that we have not been able to achieve that type of discussion in Sweden, so that we can get the large investments in new energy that are needed so that the industries that need electricity in the short term can also get it.

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

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, it was interesting that one always regrets something. That one can say quite frankly. But it would be interesting to have it clarified if one regrets letting nuclear power be phased out in 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2020. That is the core of the problems that we are discussing here and now.

Then we must, naturally, look forward. It is clear that we need as much consensus as possible, especially when it comes to long-term energy measures such as nuclear power. If the Social Democrats abandon the promise that Magdalena Andersson was elected on at the party congress a year ago – no new nuclear power – and abandon the congress decision on the same matter, we can absolutely begin to discuss. I would welcome a complete reversal from the Social Democrats' side when it comes to this.

It worked when it comes to Nato. That is what we are grateful for. It is good for Sweden. But it was also needed when it comes to nuclear power. Then we must not only speak about that we accept the nuclear power that currently exists; we must also dare to speak about more nuclear power.

Then Fredrik Olovsson says that there is no difference in appropriations between the Tidö parties and the Social Democrats. It is interesting, because that is how it is. I think the audience nevertheless got a slightly different impression when one spoke about the electricity bill crisis and the other about the fact that there is not a single penny for it in the Social Democratic budget proposal.

When it comes to grants for energy efficiency for landlords, it is a matter of being economical with the taxpayers' money. We therefore do not think it is a good idea to send billions of tax dollars to landlords who have an extremely large self-interest in making their properties energy-efficient, when instead the money needs to go to private individuals and families. This is what the 1.2 billion shall go to.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I will use this closing remark primarily to comment on the historiography that the Moderaterna so often return to. Mats Green raised it in his reply just now. It concerns above all the decommissioning of the reactors in Ringhals. It is a rather eye-catching distortion of history that is repeated time and again. That the Ringhals reactors were closed was a result of purely commercial considerations, including from the safety investments that would be required for continued operation. The safety requirements were raised after the accident in Fukushima. This has been clarified by Vattenfall on a number of occasions. But it does not help, because the Moderaterna still repeat that lie time and again.

The reason for choosing that path was that the investment cost as it was then assessed to be could not pay off because electricity prices were low and were expected to be low for a long time to come. They have, in fact, also been that until very recently.

It should also be emphasized that during the years when the reactors were shut down, the agreement between our two parties and a few others applied. The Moderates have actually been part of that entire journey. To now, at the end, pretend as if a vote here in the chamber could breathe life into what was dead is a strange way to conduct an energy policy debate.

It is probably because one wants to hide the fact that, firstly, one is just as responsible as everyone else for the energy policy and that, secondly, one has joined in the culture war against wind power, which is the great threat to the large industrial investments in the coming years.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the speech in this energy debate!

I perceive it as that most parties here in the Swedish Riksdag, just like the Christian Democrats, consider that Sweden is in an energy crisis. At the same time, an increased electricity production is also required if we are to manage the electrification we face and so that we can also meet the climate goals.

At a late stage in the election campaign, we could nevertheless hear tendencies from the Social Democrats' side that one could still think that nuclear power might be a good idea and that it might also be a possible way forward. At that point, it was a late but welcome message that I and several others with me welcomed.

We in the coalition parties have for a long time been very much in agreement that nuclear power will be part of the solution moving forward. But we are also completely in agreement that we must have an energy policy goal that says 100 percent fossil-free.

We have repeatedly heard that we are to have a completely renewable system. Then the investments will not come. They will not be made with what was stated in the previous energy agreement, that by 2040 we shall be completely renewable. It is a system that will not work.

My question to the Social Democrats and the member is actually: Can the Social Democrats also join an energy policy goal that says 100 percent fossil-free?

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, nuclear power is an important part of Swedish electricity production, and we view positively the initiatives now being taken to investigate the potential moving forward in all types of power and energy. We view, for example, the power increase in Forsmark positively. In a government position, we also tasked the authorities to review the conditions for small modular reactors.

We are ready to discuss all issues, and we are happy to do so together with the Christian Democrats and the Moderates, who we had the previous energy agreement with. Other parties are, of course, also welcome to join. But it is the government that needs to invite them.

And the problem is that such an invitation never comes. An outstretched hand is brushed aside on numerous occasions. That is something one has to live with as a politician, but there are very many outside this chamber who find it difficult to live with. They do not think that the messages that the Tidö parties have given are sufficient for them to want to start their investment plans. This applies to both the industries that are responsible for the green revolution ahead and on which we are to build Swedish prosperity and jobs for a long time, and the industries that are to deliver electricity to those companies and projects. They are not satisfied that you have reached an agreement between a few parties; instead, they want to see broad agreements. We promise to come and discuss all issues as soon as an invitation arrives, either from the Prime Minister or from the Minister for Energy and Industry.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Fredrik Olovsson for a non-answer on whether one joins a energy policy goal of 100 percent fossil-free.

We have talked for quite many years. It is also quite obvious what the different parties in Sweden's Riksdag think on energy policy issues. What is needed now is a leadership that actually dares to make decisions. This has been missing for quite a long time.

We are four parties that are in complete agreement, and we see tendencies that there are more parties that could imagine going in the same direction. Therefore, I want to ask again: Can the Social Democrats join the energy policy goal of 100 percent fossil-free?

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We will not join any policy that others have discussed among themselves. We are open to reasoning and discussing a common way forward. There, goals and different types of forces will be important parts, and I look forward to such a discussion.

I think it is important to establish that this wording was in the 2016 agreement that our parties had. It stated very clearly that it was in no way a deadline for nuclear power expressed in the goal.

It should also be said that the Swedish electricity system is almost fossil-free already today, so in that sense, it is not a very large challenge that one takes on by making such a change. We are, as said, open to discussing this with Camilla Brodin and her colleagues in the government.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! One doesn't quite get a clear picture of this. On one hand, nuclear power is okay, and on the other hand, the Social Democrats are blocking it in somewhat subtle ways. One of them is to vote against it, which the party did in the EU Parliament when it came to the taxonomy shortly before the summer.

The government spokespeople are happy to talk about the advantages of wind power and all the investors standing in line to build and invest. As an investment controller from the energy industry, I can say this: When something seems too good to be true, it usually is.

The reason we have this long queue of investors – above all foreign investors who want to enter the energy market in Sweden – is that the conditions are too favorable. The requirements are too low. One does not bear the costs that one actually causes the system on the days one cannot operate. One is not involved in paying for infrastructure. There are no plans, nothing regarding waste management and so on. It is too lucrative. It is also predicted that 65 percent of the wind power on Swedish land within one or two years will be owned by foreign interests. I think that is noteworthy.

I want, above all, to highlight the ambiguity regarding nuclear power. The member does not want to answer whether it is possible to assume "fossil-free" instead of "renewable". They voted against nuclear power in the EU. The former Prime Minister stood and mocked that nuclear power was not profitable and that there would be no new ones. I would very much like to have a clarification on that question.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, it is of course not the EU that is to decide on the Swedish energy mix. It is something that we are to do in Sweden and in the Swedish Riksdag.

It is naturally perfectly reasonable to have a discussion about which rules should apply to different types of power and which costs should be borne by one or the other. One must however know that in the end, there are only two – or possibly 10 million – who will pay for it all. It is Swedish households or Swedish companies that will pay, in one way or the other. It is therefore a matter of achieving an energy system that is socio-economically efficient.

I think this could be an absolutely excellent starting point for the discussion that should be held between the government parties and us in the opposition regarding the future energy system. It should be a good starting point for such a discussion, which perhaps can move the issue forward a bit.

In the coming years, very large amounts of new energy will be required. The market—both those who want to build energy and those who want energy—points to offshore wind power. The Sweden Democrats have made this one of the parts of their culture war, which I might call it with a bit of irony. This is, however, what it is in the end. It is not entirely rational to be so incredibly dissatisfied and critical and to denounce wind power in all contexts. It has great opportunities and great potential. On the market, there are also many actors working with different possibilities for storage.

This can, of course, be mocked if one wishes, but it is something that people – private capital – invest very large resources into. It should not just be pushed aside. We need all types of forces.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I hear no concrete answers.

The Chairman previously spoke about Ringhals not being profitable. I can say that this belongs to some of the largest capital destructions in modern times, and it is something that the taxpayers have had to bear. There was a reactor that had a fully functioning independent emergency cooling and which was equipped to function well for many years to come, and it was shut down.

What can I say? Fredrik Olovsson spoke about culture wars. They are trying to make the debate about something else entirely, Mr. Speaker. They talk about it having to be realistic and that there must be some – I don't remember the member's expression – business grounds. It is precisely this that does not exist, and it is precisely what I am trying to describe.

I have personally sat with these calculations, Mr. Speaker, so I know what has influenced the investment decisions over the last ten years. To believe that developers, or investors, are standing in line for no reason at all is to be hopelessly naive. Just as the member mentioned, it is ultimately the taxpayers who have to bear this, and that is exactly what we see.

The high prices - the skyrocketing electricity prices - arose before Putin's invasion of Ukraine. To continue to blame Ukraine is simply deeply dishonest, even if this has worsened the situation further.

You can wage this culture war in Expressen's or DN's culture pages. It does not belong here in the chamber. Here we talk realpolitik. Here we talk calculations. Give me something concrete instead!

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to remind what I previously said about how the decision regarding Ringhals was made. It was a corporate management - a board of directors - that made this decision. It is possible that the member thinks they can overrule it like this - what could it be - seven years later, but it would be to very little use.

It would be more useful to release the image that offshore wind power has nothing to contribute to the Swedish electricity system. It does, and it will show in the coming years. I believe several cabinet ministers will puff out their chests and want to take the credit for this happening, because it will need to happen if we want prosperity and jobs in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! I also want to emphasize that there is much that is good in the Social Democrats' statement on energy policy. I like how it is emphasized that in order to succeed with both electrification and lowering electricity prices, we will need all types of renewable and fossil-free energy. As it is written, shorter permit processes are needed, and the regulatory framework needs to be reviewed so that we can use both existing and future nuclear power. That is quite excellent.

What I wonder about concerns the Social Democrats' memorandum regarding the desire to review the division of electricity price areas. Just a few days ago, 13 leading representatives for the Social Democrats in Norrbotten issued strong criticism against precisely the proposal to review the different electricity price areas in Sweden. According to them, it would be extremely foolish to do so.

According to the member's party comrades, a change of the electricity price areas would risk the entire green transition in the north.

It naturally makes me extremely curious to hear what the members and the Social Democrats here in the chamber answer to their social democratic colleagues in Norrland when the Social Democrats now at the national level put forward exactly such a proposal aimed at achieving a more even price across the entire country and all electricity price areas.

It also makes me wonder what the Social Democrats actually want. One cannot both want to review the electricity price areas and at the same time not want to review the electricity price areas. My question to the member is therefore what the consequences will be for Norrland with the proposal to review the electricity price areas that the Social Democrats are now putting forward.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The division into electricity price areas that we have now was decided just over ten years ago by the bourgeois alliance government. It has been a while. It is clear that since then, very much has happened. A new grid, new large users, and new production have been added. It is clear that the limitations should be relevant and reflected in a new division of electricity price areas.

Then, naturally, the goal of the entire operation is that one should be able to have a low electricity price in the whole country, and not as it may have sometimes been said by the member himself, I believe, that it would be good to remove the electricity price areas now so that it became the same price in the whole country. Then the price would become high in the north. We do not want to see that development.

More production and transmission capacity needs to be built in the country. But when we try to address the issues, we should not have a high electricity price in northern Sweden in order to possibly lower it a little bit in southern Sweden. I hope that was clear enough for Member Eklund.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer. No one from Skåne probably wants to see the prices we have elsewhere in the country. I believe, however, that the member needs to clarify the Social Democrats' position on the consequences of the review of the electricity price areas that the party is presenting here.

That a review of the electricity price areas aims to level out the price differences is obvious, and it is also an explicit ambition from the Social Democrats. As recently as June this year, a review was justified by the desire to achieve a more even price across the electricity price areas.

Either the member shares the picture that the Norrland Social Democrats express, namely that such a change will have consequences for electricity prices in Norrland and perhaps also for the green new industrialization in the north, or the member does not. If the member does not share that picture, the logical consequence is that a review of the electricity price areas does not need to have consequences for the green investments in the north. But the member cannot think both things at the same time.

What I am looking to find out is whether the member and the Social Democrats consider that the review of the electricity price areas that they themselves propose will have consequences for electricity prices in the north - yes or no?

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We think it is reasonable to conduct a review after more than ten years of electricity price areas. Very much has happened in the electricity market. The areas must be relevant and reflect how the situation looks today. Then one also naturally finds out what limitations exist so that one can better invest in the grid and take that into account in investment decisions.

We need better transmission capacity and more production in the right places, so that lower prices can be achieved across the entire country. I believe that was a more concentrated explanation of how we view the electricity areas.

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

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my approval of the proposals in the report.

Sweden is in a very serious situation. Record-high electricity prices, electricity shortages, and the risk of disconnection and power outages are now everyday occurrences. The situation we find ourselves in is a direct consequence of the previous government's failed energy policy. Therefore, I am pleased that the Moderate-led government and our colleagues in Kristdemokraterna, Liberalerna, and Sverigedemokraterna are now changing the energy policy to rebuild a functioning, stable, and clean electricity system.

This government cooperation, the Tidö parties, agree on energy policy in general and on the importance of new nuclear power in particular, in contrast to the government bases of the two previous terms. It provides decisiveness, stability, and long-term perspective. It was needed. It is good for Sweden. But the course change towards a new stable electricity system will take time. It is not done overnight, and that must be made clear.

Mr. Speaker! I must now briefly touch upon a number of historical facts. And I mention them only because it plays an enormous role for both the current situation and the future, as well as the handling here and now, that all of this has been done. Over a period of 20 years, the Social Democrats, with the help of the Green Party, dismantled Swedish nuclear power. Consequently, one of the world's perhaps best electricity systems has been smashed to pieces.

Twelve nuclear reactors have become six. At the same time, they stopped the red-green Vattenfall's plans to build two new reactors at Ringhals, which had practically been finished now that they were needed most.

This week, Karlshamnsverket needed to burn oil to supply southern Sweden with electricity. Fossil oil therefore needs to be used because southern Sweden does not have enough electricity production. And where was the nuclear power that the Social Democrats dismantled? Well, in southern Sweden. If these reactors had remained today, Sweden would have been significantly more resilient to the crisis that all of Europe has been subjected to through Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

In addition to dismantling nuclear power, with obvious consequences for both the climate and electricity prices, they also hindered both combined heat and power and hydropower through a host of new and increased taxes, which we are abolishing in this budget, and through permit processes aimed at tearing out amounts of electricity-producing hydropower.

Magdalena Andersson spent eight years in government position among other things dismantling the foundation for Swedish electricity production and now wants a new government to clean up after her in eight weeks. That says quite a lot about what we are talking about, Mr. Speaker.

I do not intend to devote any more time in this speech to describing the consequences of the previous red-green government's energy policy, because facts and reality speak for themselves. Above all, I will speak about everything that we in the government have now kick-started in both the short and long term, but had I been a Social Democrat or an Environment Party member here today, I would have been significantly more humble than they are.

The situation Sweden finds itself in is far from sustainable for households, companies, or the climate. That electricity prices repeatedly hit new records and that electricity bills are so unpredictable is unacceptable. That companies furthermore cannot expand their operations because there is a lack of sufficient clean electricity is deplorable. The energy crisis is a threat to Sweden as a modern industrial country. So we cannot have it any longer.

I shall describe a small part of everything that we are now doing in both the short and long term. I will begin with the short term.

An electricity price subsidy of 55 billion SEK for households and companies is being introduced. It is the largest single economic initiative in Sweden ever.

An increased targeted electricity support of 2.4 billion is introduced during the beginning of 2023 for electricity-intensive companies.

Svenska kraftnät has been tasked to immediately procure demand-side flexibility of electricity, something that, for example, the industry organization Energiföretagen and the special research institute Energiforsk say will have a large price-dampening effect. I could say a lot about all the assignments that have been given to, among others, Svenska kraftnät and Energimyndigheten which will increase electricity production and capacity, but time does not permit that.

The combined heat and power taxes that the previous government introduced or increased, both the waste incineration tax and the carbon tax for combined heat and power, are being abolished. This means that electricity production can be increased rapidly in existing combined heat and power plants. We are therefore talking about untapped electricity production equivalent to at least one nuclear power plant. These are the amounts that have been taxed away and become unprofitable due to the policy of the previous government and its supporting parties.

A new support for energy efficiency is being introduced which will go to approximately 150,000 small houses across the country that are heated with direct electricity. The tax reduction for the installation of solar cells is increased from 15 to 20 percent. These are investments of 1.2 billion that truly affect many people across all of Sweden.

The government has paused the permit reviews for existing electricity-producing hydropower. This is important for both electricity production and the countryside - and, not to be forgotten in these times, the crisis preparedness.

What I have enumerated is, as I said, only a small part of everything that is being done in the short term. Now a few words about what we are doing in the long term, Mr. Speaker.

Southern Sweden is the area in the entire EU that has the least installed electricity production compared to the electricity demand - the least in the EU. We need to reflect on this fact.

It is clear that the need for more electricity in Sweden is great. The Swedish Energy Agency estimates that the electricity demand will double by 2045. We in the Tidö parties believe that it will at least double. This is partly because the industry and the transport sector need to be electrified, i.e., transition from fossil fuels to fossil-free electricity, in order to reduce emissions and meet the climate transition.

To meet a doubled electricity demand, Sweden needs more electricity production - electricity production that is fossil-free but also dispatchable.

We can achieve more electricity production on such a large scale through nuclear power. We need new reactors, both small modular as well as conventional. And we absolutely cannot decommission the reactors we have, as some in this chamber seem to want to. In order for new nuclear power to be established, political, legal, and economic conditions are required. The state should not counteract a fossil-free, stable, and predictable source of energy - on the contrary.

Mr. Speaker! The political conditions are about clearly demonstrating from a political standpoint that all fossil-free types of energy are needed. Therefore, we shall have an energy policy goal of 100 percent fossil-free electricity production where nuclear power is also included. The industry shall be able to feel secure in investing in nuclear power without having to fear that a future government makes decisions that force the decommissioning of reactors.

Furthermore, legal prerequisites through amendments to the Environmental Code are needed to enable new reactors in more locations, to have more than ten reactors in operation at the same time, and to allow more actors to invest in new nuclear power. We are allocating new green credit guarantees of 400 billion for this.

We also need new rules for the energy market with equivalent rules of the game for all types of power, where types of power that contribute with important support services are compensated for by those producers who do not contribute with these.

Mr. Speaker! The Tidö parties have only just begun the massive shift in energy policy across the board for more energy for Sweden - both in the short and long term.

I must conclude by regretting the time taken, Mr. Speaker. But as they say in my constituency Jönköpings län: It is not just that some things require their own meetings. They also require long meetings. In this year of grace 2022 in Sweden, energy policy is such a thing.

(Applause)

In this speech, Gustaf Göthberg and Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (both M) concurred.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, member, for the speech!

Some thoughts were awakened in me when the member spoke. He spoke about the importance of sticking to facts and reality and also about humility.

Against that background, I was somewhat surprised that the member claimed that it is the previous government's fault, and then particularly the Social Democrats' and the Green Party's fault, that the energy situation looks the way it does today with the energy crisis.

We have a series of initiatives underway from the EU concerning energy prices – electricity prices and gas prices, excise taxes on production companies and so on. As far as I can remember, I have not seen anything in the justifications regarding the Social Democrats' and the Green Party's government as the cause of the enormous energy crisis that has arisen not only in Sweden but in all of Europe.

Does the member share the view that it is an energy war that Putin is waging against the EU and that it is this, together with the fact that a number of reactors are shut down, which we have discussed earlier today, that is the cause of the energy crisis? My first question is whether the member shares that view.

We talk quite a bit about production. In the short term, we can achieve offshore wind power, spread out geographically across Sweden's coastline. This means that there are good chances for good electricity production at sea. Then I wonder: Will the member and the Moderaterna approve the applications that are on the government's table? That would provide necessary energy in the short term to both the business sector and households that need it - at reasonable prices.

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

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! I sincerely thank you for both of these questions, especially the last one regarding offshore wind power. We are now being told that it is to solve everything, and one wonders whether this government will approve the projects that are currently pending.

Then I would like to ask a rhetorical question: Exactly how many offshore wind power projects did the Social Democrats and the Green Party approve?

I can inform about the answer to that question - it is zero. There are none. Not a single offshore wind power project was approved by the previous government during eight years. That says quite a lot.

How the government will handle each individual offshore wind power project can, of course, only be answered by the government. It will assess each project based on its specific circumstances.

I might think it is a bit much - speaking of humility - to think that offshore wind power is going to solve everything when one has not said yes to a single application.

If I share the image that an energy war is being waged? Yes, definitely. That is how it is, and unfortunately, the Green Party and the Social Democrats have made Sweden extremely vulnerable in that energy war.

You have allowed the decommissioning of reactors in 2015, 2017, 2019 and 2020. The former Deputy Prime Minister Åsa Romson boasted of having contributed to that decommissioning.

From the perspective of the Green Party, we have made it more difficult for combined heat and power – a locally based, reliable, predictable type of energy that we need more of in Sweden, not less.

The Green Party has also made it more difficult for Swedish hydropower, both large-scale and small-scale.

I would also like to have some comments on what people have against hydropower and what they have against combined heat and power. We know what you have against nuclear power, but I would like the other two to be clarified.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Regarding the final questions, I will give a speech - then I can answer questions.

I note that the member simply avoids answering the question and, just as before, begins to talk about what the previous government has and has not done during the last eight years.

The Leader of the Opposition seems to have a fondness for looking back at what could have been. The Leader of the Opposition mourns the nuclear power that does not exist. But I must remind that we actually have a market economy and that it is a competitive market on the production side. It concerns, as we have previously heard during the debate, companies whose boards have made decisions about closure on market-based grounds. It was not we who were singled out, but it was business-driven companies.

What I am a bit surprised by is that the member does not at all seem to mourn the wind power that does not exist, approximately 100 terawatt-hours, because the Moderaterna have opposed that establishment. It would have sat quite well right now with 100 terawatt-hours. We use just over 140 terawatt-hours per year.

How is it that you oppose one power source and want to favor another that takes much longer to get in place, when we could have already had those 100 terawatt-hours today or in a few years? Both the business community and our household customers would have thought that was very good in these times with extreme prices.

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

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, I answered the question regarding offshore wind power and those projects. Each project must be assessed based on its own conditions. There is no decision that we shall not have offshore wind power, but one must have respect for the fact that each project is based on its own conditions and is assessed on that basis.

But I note that the member absolutely does not want to touch upon the fact that her government has not said yes to a single project concerning offshore wind power. It would be interesting to hear a reflection on this.

Then I note that the Green Party, so far in this debate, is trying to escape the phase-out of nuclear power, even though the former Deputy Prime Minister Åsa Romson issued a press release and said: We agree with the Social Democrats that after the 2014 election, Swedish nuclear power should be phased out. Now they pretend as if they had nothing to do with it and that it happened on strictly business grounds, which everyone knows is completely wrong. It is interesting that the Green Party now claims that it was not they who were behind this, but that it was others who phased out Swedish nuclear power. It says quite a lot about the change that has occurred during the past year; it would be interesting to have this highlighted.

I would still like to get an answer as to what is wrong with Swedish combined heat and power. What is wrong with Swedish hydropower? Why did one introduce all the new taxes on combined heat and power, which penalized much of it out of the system? It is only about 3 percent of the fuel used in combined heat and power production that is fossil. It is a bit higher now due to the times, but in 2020 it was only 3 percent.

Why all these taxes to penalize Swedish, locally produced combined heat and power? And why all these removals of electricity-producing hydropower in watercourses that have been regulated for sometimes almost a thousand years?

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, the member, for a rhetorically pleasant submission in the debate! The time was exceeded, but we heard some quite lovely formulations from the Jönköping area.

I am thinking a bit about the historiography that you return to all the time. In Sweden, we have had very high electricity prices since about a year ago. In Norway, which has 100 percent hydropower, they have very high electricity prices, just as high as in Sweden. Do you think it is because they have phased out nuclear power in Norway that the prices are so high? Or does it possibly depend on the fact that Putin has choked off the energy supply to Europe so that all of Europe has a deficit in electricity production? I would very much like to know what you think about the electricity prices in other countries.

Above all, however, I am curious about one thing that is in the Tidö Agreement and was also included in the government statement. I have come to know the Moderates as a party that for a long time has placed great confidence in market solutions and in that the market economy often arrives at the very best solutions. In the Tidö Agreement, it states that Vattenfall shall be tasked with procuring new nuclear power, even if Vattenfall concludes that it is very expensive in relation to other types of energy. I wonder, member: Do you want to partially introduce planned economy into the energy system?

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

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! I return the member's kind greeting in the debate. I also find it interesting with colleagues whom I have never debated with before.

To the questions, and first the one about Norway: Norway is a country that always stands out when it comes to everything, above all because they have an extreme abundance of oil and gas, which means they play in a division of their own, regardless of whether it is about energy or pensions. It is clear that Norway perhaps is not quite comparable in the same way as any other European country.

It is naturally also the case that prices increased before Putin. They didn't actually do so in Norway. Here it has become worse after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but even before that we saw large price increases and large fluctuations in the electricity price.

When it comes to the marketability of nuclear power, we have had moratoriums regarding nuclear power. We are not allowed to build nuclear power where we once had nuclear power, and we are also not allowed to build new nuclear power where we have not had nuclear power. So it is clear that we must ensure that it becomes economically sustainable to invest, and we must also change the legal conditions for that.

Energy is a socially important activity where one needs to have a certain level of societal control and societal entry points. I believe that most are prepared to sign off on that now.

I would also like to have some answers. The Centre Party was, for example, involved in raising the combined heat and power taxes. The Centre Party has also been involved in dismantling a part of the hydropower. You had no demands on the government to withdraw those legislative proposals. Does the Centre Party now regret its positions regarding the combined heat and power taxes and the dismantling of, above all, the small-scale hydropower?

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! We notice that the member is hedging a bit when it comes to this matter of planned economy or market economy. It seems to be some kind of middle ground you are looking for - that one should take into account both a social interest and business grounds.

Recently, Vattenfall's CEO has been interviewed in a number of different contexts, and she raises her eyebrows slightly. She says: We are a business-oriented company and we adhere to the ownership directives we have, and so far they look the way they do. It is not the politicians who are to decide when, where, or if Vattenfall should invest in nuclear power specifically, she argues - that is not quite how the governance of state-owned companies works.

The question therefore returns to the Moderates, who now sit in a governing position: Do you intend in any way to change the ownership directives for Vattenfall so that the policy more directly states what a business-oriented company should invest in regarding technologies?

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

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! No, I am not kidding at all. It is a middle ground. We need to produce more predictable, fossil-free, clean electricity, and for that, we need nuclear power. It is clear that it is a middle ground; you have long time horizons, and it is also extremely expensive. That is why we need green credit guarantees for this. Energy is vital for society—it is crucial for a functioning society. So it is obvious that the public sector needs a guarantee and a control in some way here. That I, Mr. Speaker, as a conservative, have absolutely no problem standing up for.

Then one can always have a theoretical discussion. Have we ever had a market when it comes to energy? The scholars will surely dispute that. But again – we need more predictable, reliable, fossil-free, clean electricity. We intend to take Sweden back to the energy policy that gave us Europe's cheapest and cleanest electricity.

We will, of course, have a clear governance of Vattenfall, and it will be entirely in accordance with the governance specified by the law. We had a discussion about this in the committee today. It will also be entirely in accordance with the principles that applied when the red-green government took office in 2014 and gave a directive to Vattenfall and changed the board so that fully functioning, clean and cheap Swedish nuclear power began to be phased out. We will follow these principles, but we will be extremely clear that Sweden needs more nuclear power. We will be clear towards Vattenfall but also provide both them and others with the economic and legal conditions for more nuclear power in Sweden, because Sweden needs it.

We would wish that the Center Party made a complete turnaround and were prepared to discuss with us the importance of more nuclear power for clean, stable and cheap electricity.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! The party leader for the members of the Green Party said a while ago that it would be easier to manage this situation if we had twelve reactors running instead of six. Is it the Moderates' view that even the Barsebäck reactors could be running?

Let us take Oskarshamn's reactors, which were shut down in 2015 and 2017. Is it realistic that they could be running? Can it all be blamed on the Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet for the fact that they are not running?

That the tax on thermal power was removed in 2018 by the old government, the blue-browns mention almost never.

Does this government and the supporting party mean that the management of Vattenfall lied when they said they were shutting down the Ringhals reactors for commercial reasons?

I cannot make it add up. I admit that I am no expert on nuclear power and on how all the turns surrounding it have unfolded. But if you lie enough times, you start to believe what you have said yourself, and I believe that the Moderaterna have ended up there. You claim that six reactors have been shut down for political reasons. I concede that was the case with one of them and that you even paid for it.

But do you mean that the reactors in Oskarshamn could be operational today? I hope for an answer that also gives those out there a picture of how you view the safety risks with nuclear power. Is it reasonable that the reactors in Oskarshamn could push on?

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

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have great respect for Birger Lahti and his views, even if I almost never share them. It is always interesting to discuss commerciality with a Left Party member, for they live in a parallel universe in relation to the rest of us.

Was nuclear power shut down on commercial grounds? The power tax had been raised so much and several other difficulties had been introduced that it made it practically impossible to operate nuclear power on this scale in Sweden. The tax was removed in 2018 because the Moderaterna, Liberalerna, and Kristdemokraterna had demanded it in the energy agreement, while all other parties more or less refused to discuss the issue. That tax was therefore only removed because we demanded it, and that was also the entire starting point from our three parties in the energy negotiations. Otherwise, we would not have had a single reactor left in Sweden. If a penalty tax is constantly raised, I would probably not say that one shuts down on commercial grounds.

How many reactors should we have in Sweden? If the number of reactors in Sweden is halved, it will obviously have enormous consequences for our electricity production. I have not heard anyone who has been able to deny that. And right now, this is evident with all desirable clarity. Whether we should have more reactors in Oskarshamn or if one should start building in Barsebäck again, I am not the right person to decide, but there is other expertise here. Purely spontaneously, I think there should be great advantages to building new nuclear power where one already has a connection to the main grid and so on, which makes it favorable. But one must obviously see what is possible and appropriate regarding the number and location in the country.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! The member did not answer my questions.

The Moderate Party's party leader has said that it would be easier with an additional six reactors running. Is it reasonable to say so when two of these reactors would never have survived until today? One can discuss whether the reactors in Oskarshamn could have been included after investments.

Do the Moderates claim that Vattenfall's board lied when they said they were shutting down the reactors for commercial reasons? The Moderates held government power between 2006 and 2014, but the tax on thermal power remained throughout that entire time. You did nothing about it. I do, however, agree that in energy policy discussions after the Energy Commission in 2015, it was decided to remove the tax in 2018. And I agree with Mats Green's analysis that that was certainly what made today's reactors stay running.

But do the Moderates mean that Vattenfall's board lied to the Swedish people when they said they were shutting down the reactors for commercial reasons?

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

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! The answer to the first question as to whether it would have been easier with six more reactors is yes, absolutely. This is what I and my colleagues have tried to say throughout this entire debate. It would have eased the electricity price extremely much but also made Sweden significantly less vulnerable to Putin's energy war - not to mention all the positive effects it would have had for the climate. So we would have needed at least six more reactors, I would say.

Yes, the Alliance government kept the electricity tax but at a significantly lower level, because there were no problems with the profitability of nuclear power then. The nuclear power producers were rather making excess profits, so therefore there was no reason to remove the electricity tax.

When it comes to commercial grounds, one can obviously express it in different ways, but do you really shut down on commercial grounds when a government enters to raise the tax so much that one is taxed out of the system and thus indirectly forced into closure?

If it was on commercial grounds? Yes, that can be discussed. But it was not of their own choice, rather they were forced into it. There were no other reasons for Vattenfall to decide to phase out nuclear power. On the contrary, they wanted to build two new reactors, which could have been finished by now and which we really had needed. The reason was that the red-green government raised the tax to force nuclear power out of the system. That is the truth, and that is how history looks.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I will primarily speak about matters for which Mats Green has already received replies.

First, to the historical description that the Moderaterna repeat time and again. It is simply not true, which Mats Green and all other bourgeois politicians who repeat it obviously know. Actually, everything that Birger Lahti just said is true. The tax on nuclear power was raised during the Alliance government. It was indeed removed together with my party.

Other measures were also taken so that the profitability of nuclear power could be slightly improved, since prices were low. For example, the placement rules in the Nuclear Waste Fund were broadened so that the fee could be reduced. It also became a few öre, which was important for nuclear power to survive at that time, as it had problems with its profitability.

It is striking that one sweepingly claims that well-reputed Swedish corporate executives lie about their reasons for moving. This is actually astonishing and a poor way to handle the governance of state-owned enterprises. So, I simply do not think that is how one behaves.

The second thing I wanted to ask about is the green credit guarantees, which are a good idea and were introduced by the previous government. They provide an opportunity for large-scale projects with climate benefits to receive state guarantees. Is Mats Green open to the idea that it is not only nuclear power that should have the conditions he speaks of and that these should apply to all types of energy and energy solutions?

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

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you very much for the question.

So, one does not buy our historiography. It is honestly the same as saying that one did not let reactors be decommissioned in 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2020, and that one did not, by a margin of one vote, vote down our proposal to retain Ringhals 1 and 2 in January 2020. This apparently has not happened. And Magdalena Andersson also did not promise, at the Social Democratic party congress last year, that there would be no new nuclear power, and the congress did not make any decision to decommission nuclear power and replace it with something else.

It is very easy to check that is not the case, so I find it a bit difficult to understand the argument, especially since the Social Democratic party leader one year before the 2014 general election, when she was the finance minister candidate, clarified that the Social Democrats wanted to resume the phasing out of nuclear power. She said: "We think that nuclear power should be phased out and replaced with renewable energy sources." Obviously, this has not happened in Fredrik Olovsson's world either.

When it comes to green credit guarantees, 400 billion has been allocated to enable new nuclear power. Then, of course, we want technology neutrality regarding the other types of power. This is, of course, always something that can be discussed.

The Alliance government actually raised the electricity tax - that is the fact. They raised it by 1 öre over eight years. It is an increase, absolutely, but one needs to put it into its proper perspective.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I received no answer to the questions I had regarding how reasonable it is for a Member of Parliament to express themselves in that way about well-reputed business leaders, who are also quite easily identified. I believe that most people outside this chamber trust them more than Mats Green. It is not certain that it is the best strategy the Member has chosen, but that is for him to bear. I still think it should be marked.

It should also be recorded in the chamber's minutes that when the agreement was made in 2016 between our parties and some others, the Moderaterna broke out very happily that it was a fantastic success and that it saved nuclear power. It is primarily these decisions that have since formed the basis for the energy policy. What was done in 2016 is primarily based on the Alliance agreement from 2008-2009. In fact, it is such that Mats Green talks about history without seeing that his own party has had a decisive influence for 15 years. It actually does not become quite serious.

How can one trust that what the Moderaterna say shall apply going forward will be what they also want to implement later? It is highly doubtful whether, for example, the provisions concerning the state management of Vattenfall can really survive a serious test in the next step, when it is to be done for real. It is certainly possible to find further examples.

The hair-splitting should, at least for some parties, be significant when it comes to the fact that it might not be so simple to get everything in place as has been promised in the negotiations.

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

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! I note that Fredrik Olovsson does not mention in a single word all the promises that his party leader has made about phasing out nuclear power and does not in a single word mention the fact that the party congress has made a decision to do this. He also does not mention in a single word that all nuclear reactors in Sweden that have been decommissioned have been decommissioned under a Social Democratic government, while Moderate-led governments have not decommissioned a single reactor.

When it comes to well-reputed business leaders in Vattenfall's board: absolutely, but one can discuss how the commercial divestment was, since the Social Democratic and Green Party government constantly ensured to raise the electricity tax to tax them out of their operations. Because that is what it was about. Then I also understand that one might not front against one's own government.

When it comes to it being done on commercial grounds, we probably have very different perceptions of what commercial grounds are. I would say that if you have a government that raises the electricity tax to get rid of a type of energy, it is not pure market economy. Rather, it is an indirect effect of political decisions that one is forced to shut down because it is no longer profitable. That is how it is.

It is also not the case that combined heat and power in Sweden was phased out on commercial grounds, it is the same thing there. It was forced to be phased out and reduced because you introduced combined heat and power taxes and increased these taxes, Fredrik Olovsson. That is also the truth.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Mats Green's party Moderaterna and my party Miljöpartiet agreed in 2016, together with other parties, on an energy agreement that we would have a 100 percent renewable electricity system by 2040 and that this would be done without decommissioning nuclear power through political decisions. This is what we have worked for since then, but it is now clear that Moderaterna wants a high proportion of nuclear power in the Swedish electricity system. I therefore want to ask Moderaterna:

How much and why does one want to use Swedish taxpayers' funds to specifically subsidize nuclear power to meet electricity production?

How do the Moderaterna view the dependence on uranium imports to Sweden today and the increased need for uranium imports, if we are to expand nuclear power?

How have the Moderaterna intended to solve intermediate storage of radioactive waste?

How have the Moderates intended to solve the final disposal of a large, increased volume of radioactive waste?

And finally: Do the Moderaterna want us to start mining uranium in Sweden? Is it in the Jämtland region or in the Örebro region, or where does one want to mine uranium? And how do the Moderaterna view how this would affect the local population?

Furthermore, I wonder if the Moderaterna want to build many small reactors, where in Sweden these are to be built, how the population living near these will be affected, and how crisis management and similar measures, in the event of an accident, shall be prepared.

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

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! There were eleven questions, and it may happen that I do not have time to answer all of them during the exchange of remarks. In that case, we will have to take them in another context.

Firstly, I note, Mr. Speaker, that the Green Party is now doing everything to distance itself from its own nuclear phase-out. That which was previously boasted about and sent out in press releases, one is now fleeing from and trying to say it was someone else. They do not even want to touch the issue. I think this is an interesting shift in perspective and a complete about-face in Swedish politics. I hope that the Green Party might be prepared to discuss new nuclear power. That would be good.

When it comes to tax money for energy, green credit guarantees are green credit guarantees. When it comes to energy, it is clear that nuclear power, just like other activities where advantages regarding the environment are seen, should be able to access credit guarantees. That is how it is. I don't actually believe there is any principled objection to this from Miljöpartiet. They don't like nuclear power, but I assume they think green credit guarantees are quite good since they introduced them once.

When it comes to uranium mining, we think it should be possible to mine uranium in Sweden to avoid importing from Russia or being dependent on other countries. We also think that one should be able to mine rare earth metals here that are needed for environmental technology. That is also what Miljöpartiet is against. They do not want us to mine rare earth metals here in Sweden. Then the question is: Where in the world should they be mined? Should they be mined in countries with atrocious working conditions and atrocious environmental conditions? I have never received a proper answer to that.

I think it is a bit hypocritical when one sits and uses mobile phones and when one wants many wind turbines that are dependent on precisely these rare earth metals, but they should not be mined in Sweden but in China and in Africa.

I would very much like to have a comment regarding what I actually want to call a proper climate trickery.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I note that Mats Green is completely silent when it comes to radioactive waste, whether it concerns interim storage or final disposal, and when it comes to the local effects and consequences that a uranium mining would entail. On the other hand, he asks questions to me. That is nice – a rhetorical device. He is welcome to come back with them later.

Sweden has had a virtually fossil-free electricity production for decades. The new government and the Sverigedemokraterna therefore want to set a goal for 2040, a goal that we virtually achieved decades ago.

At the same time, this government is presenting a budget where they want to lower the carbon tax on, among other things, combined heat and power, which would take us further away from the goal of a fossil-free electricity production.

What do the Moderaterna and Mats Green mean by this? Why are you setting a goal almost 20 years into the future that was achieved several decades ago? And why are you conducting a policy that takes us further away from this goal and which also complicates the work of reaching the climate goals?

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

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! I noted that it was the government that the Green Party joined that failed with its climate goals. We intend to succeed with ours.

That Sweden has a largely fossil-free electricity production did not really apply during the time when Miljöpartiet held government responsibility in Sweden. It was at the time when Karlshamnsverket burned 140,000 liters of oil per hour. We can only imagine how much pollution and carbon dioxide this plant spewed into the atmosphere. It was not because people thought it was fun, but it was a logical consequence of the energy policy that Miljöpartiet and Socialdemokraterna have pursued for a long time. That is how it is. It would be interesting to later in the debate receive a comment on whether you are proud of this fact.

When it comes to interim storage and final disposal, there are facilities in both Oskarshamn and Forsmark. It is interesting that it was the previous Social Democratic government that made the decision regarding the final disposal in Forsmark. At that time, the Green Party was not in the government.

Even if we were to stop with nuclear power tomorrow, one would still need to manage final disposal and interim storage. It does not disappear.

Again: We need more clean, stable and reliable electricity production. It is nuclear power that can give us that. It is unfortunately not wind power. It is a technical fact, and it is a fact in many other ways as well. There, the Green Party is answerable, especially as they during their time in government did not say yes to a single offshore wind power project. It is interesting and telling, Mr. Speaker.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker, colleagues and perhaps someone listening somewhere! If it has ever been relevant or interesting how the governing leadership in Sweden views energy policy, it is definitely now. Right now, the spot price in the whole country is 483.78 öre, that is to say almost 5 kronor per kilowatt-hour.

I have acquaintances and friends who describe how they lie sleepless at night when they think about the next electricity bill. I will return to the electricity price support later in my speech, Mr. Speaker. It will be interesting.

This government considers that the Swedish energy policy needs a new direction. Therefore, it intends to return to the Riksdag with a proposal that the goal of 100 percent renewable electricity production by 2040 is replaced with the goal of 100 percent fossil-free electricity production by 2040.

We have heard this since the day the Moderaterna left the energy agreement. And now they are in government and intend to change the direction, that is to say that everything will be solved with nuclear power. The problem is that we need a solution that provides power to our households and companies now, not in 15 years, which many experts say is the minimum time horizon before nuclear power can be in place if new is built and it can solve the problems with the high electricity prices and the uncertainty on the electricity market.

Vänsterpartiet has since last summer tried to get other parties to understand Bengt Ekenstierna's proposal on Sweden prices, or the Beken model as he himself calls it, and how this model for pricing would solve the problem with the exorbitant electricity prices that we are infected with from the continent. But we have done so without success so far in any case. I cannot understand this resistance to a solution that could work and still provide a surplus to the neighboring countries just as today.

I clarify here once and for all that this model does not remove the price areas that we have today. It only means that we price Swedish customers first, with more normal profits for the producers and an average price in the country for customers of slightly over 40 öre. Thereafter, the surplus is exported with prices that the neighboring countries already pay today with marginal pricing.

I understand the citizens who contact me in frustration when they cannot understand the logic in that we as a nation, which exports mostly to neighboring countries and has a production cost of about 30 öre, must pay 5 kronor per kilowatt-hour for our own produced electricity.

That we have adopted the market model as some kind of religion that will solve all pricing or functions that society needs is typical for the blue-brown gang.

I don't even intend to start listing industries or functions where market steering absolutely does not belong. But in the countryside, the consequences have already shown themselves for a long time, and the picture of colonialism is becoming ever clearer.

That we are to allocate nature and the environment to energy production is completely okay because it can contribute with clean electricity, a better climate, and a safer future for coming generations. But there is a small problem here as well when foreign investors take the production away in long-term contracts abroad. And with today's system, where municipalities receive nothing and neighbors usually also are left without benefits, the image grows that one is actually being cheated and that the Swedish people have missed something essential here.

But it doesn't have to be that way. We can do better. Vänsterpartiet wants to introduce a legally regulated, production-based compensation to municipalities and residents where wind power is built. If those who see a wind turbine from their home can perhaps expect cheaper electricity as compensation or some other benefit, then I actually think that more people would be much more positive about looking at a wind turbine from the kitchen window.

Of course, the municipalities that have previously allocated the immediate environment should be able to count on the same compensation. But here, obviously, society should step in during the phasing-in period. And we are allocating funds for the purpose in our budget motion.

Now that I am once in the budget, it is appropriate that I clarify the following: That our budget motion fell means that we do not participate in the decisions regarding the frameworks for the expenditure areas, but instead refer to our budget, which is to be seen as a whole. I and Vänsterpartiet obviously have a different direction regarding even this expenditure area's appropriation.

The biggest difference here is that the government, together with SD, is throwing Sweden several decades back in development. I and the Left Party have a different picture. The Stone Age did not end because the stones ran out, but it ended because better techniques took over. Here, one continues to struggle with an old technique that has not moved an inch in decades.

A one-sided focus on nuclear power threatens, for example, the great will to invest in wind power both on land and at sea. Such investments could provide a very significant addition to power production within time horizons that new nuclear power will not even come close to.

The main goal of the energy policy should be major reforms aimed at expanding renewable energy production and transitioning from fossil fuels to renewables. The climate transition of the transport and industrial sectors occurs largely through electrification.

In the energy sector, there is also room for initiatives that are not only important for the climate transition but also create jobs and boost the economy. Here, I would like to refer to our budget motion, where Vänsterpartiet takes a holistic approach in the form of the investment package for the climate that we want to launch. It concerns investments of 700 billion kronor over the next ten years, which significantly accelerates the climate transition.

The proposed investment program would mean increased equality, strengthened productivity, reduced unemployment, and a modernization of Swedish society. If our budget had won approval, the work of planning, collaborating on, and coordinating this extensive investment program would have begun during 2023, and the program would have been implemented in the energy sector from 2024 and scaled up over a period of ten years.

Mr. Speaker! We propose all of this so that Sweden does not end up in situations like the one we have found ourselves in today. It is required that the state takes more control over the type of socially important functions that the electricity supply actually is.

For me and Vänsterpartiet, it is a mystery how the government turns a blind eye to facts that clearly show, for the first, that the pricing is not functioning. It is likely to scare away our own industrial initiatives, it risks jobs and it makes many private individuals poor - and in the worst case, homeless.

Secondly, facts show that the measures the government presents, which are intended to take us out of the crisis, are toothless in the face of the price level. The same thing will happen next winter if no other measures are put in place.

I go back to the electricity price support, as I promised. That the government realizes that something must be done so that private individuals and companies can cope with the upcoming situation is obviously good. But we Norrland Swedes are also included in that. The Energy Minister expressed it as that the Swedish people will receive the electricity price support as promised, even though half of Sweden was missing - and still is missing - on the map for electricity price support.

The nonchalance that the government and its supporting party have shown us living north of the Dalälven regarding the situation that we also find ourselves in makes me nearly fucking furious. Pardon my language, Mr. Speaker! But that the government deliberately closes its eyes to the measure that would solve next winter's situation, that is, the introduction of Sverigepriser, only shows how paralyzed one is who lets the EU program the measures.

Measures that should be launched after Sverigepriser are implemented are, of course, compensation to municipalities and neighbors for wind power, so that completed projects gain better acceptance and are established as soon as possible. Regarding offshore wind power, southern Sweden must begin realizing projects that are only waiting for permits.

We cannot have a situation where a socially important function such as the electricity supply becomes a paradise for speculation, with profits counted in three-digit percentages and where the payers are private individuals and small businesses - while companies risk going under and people are stripped of their assets. Worst of all is that the government and SD know what is going on.

Rarely am I so upset over situations that become unjust and hit those who have the least the hardest as I am now. I am, frankly, sacredly furious about how the electricity price support is designed. One provides support that is clearly insufficient even for many private individuals in southern Sweden - but one also provides support to the billionaires' castles and vacation homes as well as to large food chains and stores that have already taken payment from the customers in the form of increased food prices. A little humility from Sverigedemokraterna and the government would therefore be in order.

As I began with, I have acquaintances and friends who testify to an unsustainable situation regarding upcoming electricity bills. All of this could be addressed if the will existed. In the name of honesty, I actually do not know what situation we would have found ourselves in with a different government, but one thing I can promise: We would have pressured the government with every means at our disposal if we had been included.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! On behalf of the Christian Democrats, I would like to move for the approval of the Committee on Industry's proposal in report NU3.

I can begin by stating, with pleasure, that my party leader Ebba Busch is the new Minister for Energy and Industry in Sweden. If there is anyone capable of steering our country's energy policy correctly after eight years of red-green mismanagement, it is actually Ebba.

Sweden is in an energy crisis, and at the same time, increased electricity production is required to meet the electrification. Therefore, several budget initiatives are now proposed to strengthen the energy supply. This concerns energy efficiency, streamlining of permit processes, an investment in nuclear power research, an investment in electricity and fuel readiness, as well as targeted electricity support for electricity-intensive companies. I intend to go through these initiatives a bit to introduce us to this report where a part of the budget is addressed.

Energy prices are and have been exceptionally high. To promote energy efficiency and thereby reduce vulnerability to high energy prices for small households, the government proposes a support for energy efficiency in small houses during the next three years.

The support is an investment grant for conversion measures aimed at moving from heating systems based on direct electricity or gas to systems that lead to reduced energy consumption and a reduced power demand. The investment grant is also given for climate screen measures such as facade and roof insulation and replacement of windows and doors in the event that the small house has direct electricity or gas as heating.

Another part is the streamlining of permit processes. It is an issue that has been relevant for a very long time. I still want to say that the previous government made some progress in this and that we agreed that it was required. But more is needed, and permit processes are something we really must look further into.

The Government is now increasing the appropriation to Energimarknadsinspektionen so that the agency can continue the efficiency work regarding the processing of grid concessions and the work to counteract bottlenecks in the permit process. Energimarknadsinspektionen is the agency that examines the grid companies' applications for grid concessions, that is, the permits to build, for example, high-voltage lines, and thus has a central role in the electrification of, among other things, the transport sector and industry.

This is an important parameter that I nevertheless experience all parties are talking about. One wants to be involved in shortening the permit processes, and I look forward to being able to do that. We need to deal with this soon.

We also have initiatives on nuclear power research. It is about the government wanting to secure new predictable electricity production in Sweden, primarily by enabling new nuclear power.

The Government also proposes investments for research and innovation regarding nuclear power, including research within the field of radiation safety. The initiative is a reinforcement of the research that is already funded by the Swedish Energy Agency. It was started somewhat cautiously last year when our budget proposal won in this chamber.

We also have an initiative on electricity and fuel preparedness. Against the background of the security policy situation, it is particularly urgent to accelerate the development of civil defense. Therefore, the government is also strengthening the efforts for electricity and fuel preparedness. This is being done towards Svenska kraftnät and the Swedish Energy Agency to increase the robustness of the fuel supply.

It concerns, among other things, measures that increase the ability to prevent, resist, and manage severe disruptions in the electricity supply. This is in order to supply society-critical activities with electricity or to accelerate the reconstruction in the event of a major disruption.

The robustness of the fuel supply shall be increased through investments in supply chains, for example, backup power plants, tankers equipped with equipment to be able to refill backup power plants and training of specifically truck drivers. It is not there today.

Mr. Speaker! We also have a targeted electricity support for electricity-intensive companies. The government intends to introduce a targeted support for the truly electricity-intensive companies. That design is currently being prepared in the Government Offices. The government nevertheless allocates 2.4 billion kronor for a support to these.

The reason is that Swedish companies that use a lot of electricity in their processes are getting very increased electricity costs which are difficult to pass on in a higher price to the customer. If the companies are affected too negatively, it risks leading to further ripple effects in the Swedish economy while Sweden risks losing important industry to non-European countries.

Mr. Speaker! In addition to what I have presented as the government's initiatives, we have, alongside the state budget, the necessary work of returning 55 billion kronor from the so-called bottleneck fees to households and companies that are to be compensated for the high electricity prices, that is to say, the electricity support.

This work is ongoing in the Government Offices at the highest possible speed and has the absolute highest priority. It is a self-evident hygiene issue for us to see this through. But it is with a very great regret that I am forced to state that it costs a lot of money to mitigate the consequences of a red-green energy policy.

Let me be clear that we do not believe we are solving any energy problems over time by putting this bandage on households' and companies' electricity bills. This is a relief of the consequences that we are now seeing and for which we have to pay. But we will, step by step, implement measures to turn our country in another direction. We do this together with M, L and SD. It will take time, but we will succeed. With this, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for the floor.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! We celebrate Thursday evening in the chamber together and debate energy. It is of course very important that we have the chance to do so when we have a budget area to tend to.

I have a question for the member which concerns broad energy agreements. In 2009, the then Alliance parties entered into an energy agreement, which was subsequently expanded in 2016 when the Social Democrats and the Green Party joined.

Five parties agreed on long-term rules of the game so that market actors would know what applied even across parliamentary terms. There, we had, among other things, a goal that Sweden should have no net emissions in 2045 and that a phase-out law on nuclear power will not be reintroduced.

The nuclear power parenthesis was extended within the framework of a maximum of ten reactors by allowing new construction at existing sites. It was spoken of that there would be no state subsidies for nuclear power.

It was also discussed that the tax on thermal power would be phased out over a two-year period starting in 2017, which also happened. That tax disappeared in 2018.

The Moderates and the Christian Democrats chose to withdraw from the energy agreement in December 2019. Now the market is incredibly uneasy and wonders which rules will apply. What do I dare to invest in? What can our company do when the politics is so volatile and uncertain?

My question to the Christian Democrats is: How do the Christian Democrats intend to create stability in energy policy? Will you work for broad energy agreements, or will you run for four years until a new government tears up what you are doing?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Anders Ådahl, for the question! This is a question that I have not received for the first time and certainly not for the last time.

We entered into the energy agreement in 2016 primarily to save what can be saved. We saw that nuclear power was about to penalize itself with the high electricity taxes.

We also saw that we needed to look at several different parts. We were, of course, part of the various conversations. We managed to be five parties that nevertheless reached an agreement.

If we look a bit forward in time from 2016 to 2019, quite a lot happened during that period both in Sweden and in our global environment. At that stage, we did not speak about any planning goal or security of delivery.

We saw: Oh, here there are several nuclear power plants being taken out of operation. The rug was pulled out to build new nuclear power at Ringhals 5 and 6 which were planned. That was done already in 2014.

Somewhere, one needs to ensure that it is still possible to have a dialogue so that one can give the indications to all those who want to invest and who are electricity producers today on how we can have more electricity in the future and not less electricity.

At that time, no one was talking about us having more electricity. But that is what is being done today. In principle, all parties in the Swedish Riksdag say that we should have more electricity in the future and not less electricity.

However, the market said: We do not dare to invest. You have an energy goal that says 100 percent fossil-free by 2040, but you do not say any end date for nuclear power. Who wants to invest in nuclear power if it is to be phased out by 2040?

Double messages were given. We have to take responsibility for that. Why did we agree to that then? We had conversations about how the future could work. But it no longer worked, because one was not willing to even discuss it moving forward.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! This account honors the member. I recognize it. Thank you for that answer!

It is, however, somewhat unstable and bordering on astonishing that an energy agreement intended to last for 25 years and create stability in the chamber of Sweden's Riksdag is broken after three years. It creates no confidence in the market for the politics.

I want to repeat my question. Will the Christian Democrats work to create new energy agreements now? Or will you work for four years with a two-mandate overweight in the chamber, and then perhaps there will be a new government that changes the course again? Which path will you choose?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, which gives me the chance to try to explain to all those who are still wondering!

Right now we are in a precarious situation. We have an energy crisis. We also have an energy transition or electrification so that we can meet the climate goals. Decisions also need to be made here and now.

It is what the entire industry has been waiting for. I do not think the industry is prepared to wait another four years for us to reach a new agreement. We are four parties. We are doing exactly what we have said for quite a long time, ever since 2019. We need to take it step by step.

We do not know what it will look like tomorrow. Therefore, we cannot have a broad agreement that we say shall exist for 20-25 years and that we cannot compromise on, because reality looks the way it does here and now. We must live with it. Therefore, it is important with clear leadership. But we say that we shall have 100 percent fossil-free. I hope that also Centerpartiet will be able to join that goal here in the chamber but also give that signal to the industry, because that is what is required.

It is also required that one can rely on the electricity being there when it is needed, if we are to get investments here. It is required that we remain a competitive country, as Sweden has been for a long time thanks to the fine energy mix that we should be proud of. It is something that the industry, the companies, and the citizens demand of their politicians. And I hope that more and more want to be part of that journey. We are four parties that are in complete agreement, and I still see tendencies that more want to be involved and take responsibility for this energy policy.

As it has been now for eight years, it does not work at all, but here a leadership is needed that this government can take.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is a pleasure to be here together.

The Christian Democrats have pointed out that they want a goal for 2040 of a fossil-free electricity production. Sweden has, therefore, already had a virtually fossil-free electricity production for decades. In that case, I see it as quite remarkable that one wants to set such a goal for 2040 and wonder why. Even more remarkable it becomes when one is now conducting a policy that takes us further away from that goal.

The start of Karlshamnsverket has been mentioned here in the debate today. It led to large fossil emissions, which is serious if we are to reach the climate goals. When Miljöpartiet sat in government, we introduced, among other things, a carbon tax on combined heat and power. We did that precisely to ensure that fossil-free methods of electricity production, including nuclear power, would have better incentives than the fossil ones when it came to this specific policy instrument, so that we could phase out the fossil-driven combined heat and power from our electricity system.

This government, however, chooses to lower the carbon tax on combined heat and power and thus risks significantly increasing fossil emissions from electricity production in Sweden, which has essentially had a fossil-free electricity system for decades. At the same time, there is talk of a goal for fossil-free electricity production by 2040. How does this hang together?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Elin Söderberg for the question.

One must not forget here that in the previous energy agreement from 2016, it stated that one should safeguard district heating and combined heat and power with the significant role they nevertheless had.

The Green Party, which sat in government together with the Social Democrats, overstepped and octupled the tax. One had three months to transition. Despite the fact that combined heat and power was planned to transition to becoming fossil-free by 2026, the tax was octupled, which caused planned production to be taken out of operation. It was not profitable at all to continue operating it. This, together with the fact that nuclear power has been decommissioned, has resulted in a situation where southern Sweden cannot at all manage to take care of the production that we would have needed so much. Therefore, the Karlshamn plant must start. It is not good environmental or climate policy at all.

If we continue in this direction, we will see even greater consequences and have to import to a greater extent than we do today. We should be able to be an export country of fossil-free energy to several surrounding countries. I can take Germany and Poland as examples. I do not want to see us ending up in that situation. Here, it is a matter of us creating the conditions to safeguard the fine electricity mix that we still have in Sweden and ensuring that we do this in the right way.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! While we have been in government, electricity production has been significantly expanded. Sweden is today Europe's largest net exporter of electricity, which is pleasing.

When it comes to district heating and specifically the fossil emissions, we are in a climate crisis. We have a very limited remaining emission space if we are to succeed in keeping global warming at 1.5-2 degrees. Therefore, it is not just about becoming fossil-free or reducing emissions, we must do it quickly in the near term.

My question did not concern how history has looked. I asked why the government and the Sweden Democrats, in a situation where we must reduce emissions, choose to implement reforms that de facto increase fossil emissions from electricity production, while simultaneously saying they want to work towards a goal of fossil-free electricity production.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Elin Söderberg says that there is a climate crisis here. We see a major energy crisis that is partly created by eight years of mismanagement of energy policy. At the same time, a war is ongoing in Europe with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which affects the entire situation that we find ourselves in right now.

We must take responsibility so that families with children do not have to move because of the exceptionally high electricity prices - we must not freeze out our citizens. In a situation like this, we need to take responsibility, and then we need all the fossil-free electricity production that we can possibly get.

We need to create the conditions to achieve fossil-free electricity production in the long run. But in this situation, we still choose to ensure that we have electricity when we need it. We cannot penalize our companies or citizens to the point that they cannot even afford to invest in what will take us to the fossil-free goal, which is what is happening right now. Therefore, we need to have a government that takes that responsibility and ensures that we have good conditions to be the welfare state that we so well deserve to be and can move into the future. Then we cannot have a climate-hostile policy, as it actually has been for a fairly long time.

The consequence will be that we have to burn in the Karlshamn plant. Is that okay? No, it is not. That is not where we want to be. Therefore, we need to ensure that this is done in the right way. The consequence must not be that we penalize our citizens.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the floor! We are celebrating a late Thursday evening in the chamber of the Riksdag and debating energy policy, and it has perhaps never been more important than now.

Let me begin with the history.

The Swedish electricity system was started in the late 1800s by small private innovators. Among the first were Karlslunds gård outside Örebro and actually the Chalmers Craft School in Gothenburg, where they got some electric lighting so that the students could sit and study even when it was dark in November and December. It grew and grew, and there were more private actors. The demand and the need for electricity increased, and an opportunity was seen to expand the hydropower.

Sweden's modern electricity system actually began in the years 1909-1910, when a power plant was built in Trollhättan, Olidan's power plant, which still functions today with 13 turbines on site. It is quite fascinating. It was also there that Vattenfall had its cradle. Svenska vattenfallsstyrelsen eventually became Vattenfall.

Then, in the 50s and 60s, the post-war years, there was a great demand. Sweden expanded hydropower on a large scale. We continued that path with expansion. When hydropower was fully expanded, we expanded nuclear power during the 70s and 80s.

I have an interesting figure from 1988. At that time, we produced 138 terawatt-hours and consumed 138 terawatt-hours. Now, 30-40 years later, when we have the latest statistics, we produce 161 terawatt-hours and use 135 terawatt-hours. We use less electricity now than in 1988 and produce far more electricity than before. At the same time, the market has seen over the recent years that nuclear reactors that need reinvestments are simply not profitable. Instead, the new renewable wind power has gained ground and taken a position in the Swedish electricity system, so that we are now actually enormous net producers. We have never produced as much electricity in Sweden as we do now.

It would naturally be a ridiculous piece of historiography to say that nuclear power shutdowns have affected the price. It becomes quite absurd when we produce so much more electricity now compared to what we did in 1988 and actually use less.

Energy policy is more important than ever. We have three major challenges ahead of us. The demand for electricity has been constant. But now we see that the industry is to have a green transition and wants a massive amount of electricity. The transport sector is also to have a green transition and wants a massive amount of electricity. For the first time since the mid-1980s, we now see an increased demand for electricity, and it is going steeply upwards now.

We have a security situation in Europe that is extremely critical. Russia's war against Ukraine has spilled over and become an energy war against Europe. There are large deficits in electricity production and electrical energy and actually all energy. This makes new electricity production necessary, and we must move away from the fossil.

The third major challenge, which everyone here knows, is that we have an enormous climate crisis that we must also take into account. The big questions for us in Sweden and Europe are: How do we get cheap energy, how do we get clean energy, and how do we get a secure supply of energy?

We stand at a crossroads. How do we meet the future? The EU has a response to the situation that they call Repower EU. There, they address three points:

We must not make ourselves dependent on the import of fuel from individual countries, for example of oil or uranium.

We are going to have a major campaign to save energy. It is the cheapest way.

We shall accelerate clean energy.

Under the last point, it is specifically stated: "Renewables are the cheapest and cleanest energy available. They can be generated domestically, allowing us to reduce our energy imports."

That information comes from the EU, and information also comes from energy system researchers in Europe and not least in Sweden who are looking at which energy system will be the cheapest: Is it one that uses many renewable types of energy, or is it one that uses many large classic power plants? Almost all studies show that the cheapest electricity systems are the renewable electricity systems.

We face a crossroads: Shall we believe in market solutions and let the market actors invest in the technology they find cheapest, or shall we, from a Swedish perspective, point with the whole hand and let politicians, that is to say laypeople, decide what is the cheapest, best, and finest technology in the country? That is where we find ourselves.

Now it is time for unity. It is time for politics to take responsibility both for the households' economy and for ensuring that we get the transition in place. The election campaign unfortunately had a very populist campaign and a populist slant. There were cries for high-cost protection and 10 kronor at the pump, and that all problems in our country would be solved with enormous amounts of nuclear power.

We hope that we can leave that situation and that the government now instead steps forward, takes responsibility, and invites the other parties to broad political agreements within the energy area, both to get short-term measures in place and to get stable long-term rules of the game that make market actors dare to invest.

Populism and half-truths must simply leave the energy debate and energy policy. We can do so much better.

Centerpartiet wants to see a modern electricity system and that electricity production is expanded to an extent that at least corresponds to a doubling in relation to today. We want it to be the market actors who invest and that it should be politics that develops the long-term rules of the game. We honor and believe in the market's functioning, and all emission-free types of energy are welcome to compete for a new expansion of Swedish electricity production.

Furthermore, the Centre Party proposes a number of measures to increase Sweden's electricity production. We want to see an increase of at least 50 terawatt-hours within this parliamentary term, and after the next parliamentary term, we want an additional 165 terawatt-hours to be in place. It is thus over 200 terawatt-hours that must be put in place before any new nuclear power can be available due to construction times and permit processes. It is therefore an enormous challenge.

We want a crisis commission to be appointed which, within half a year, shall present concrete measures to reach these tough electricity production targets. It will require a massive effort to remove obstacles such as permit processes and the downsides of the municipal veto, to name just two examples.

In addition to domestic electricity production, we must also have a major focus on energy efficiency and on supporting technologies. If one wants to invest heavily in renewable electricity production with wind and perhaps solar, we need energy storage technologies across different time horizons in the electricity system. We need demand flexibility. We need peak load production. We need new transmission. We need to have a digitized energy system from customer up to production and from production down to customer.

Finally, I want to say that the Center Party rejects the proposal to specifically invest in nuclear power research because the researchers themselves should best determine what they should research. We see, instead, opportunities to focus broadly on energy research.

As I have said in the debate here earlier, we stand ready to talk, discuss and negotiate so that we can achieve a broad energy agreement in the Riksdag and so that market actors receive long-term rules of the game.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! Never before have energy issues been as important as they are now. Never in modern times have we had such an unstable energy system as we have now, and never before have families paid as much for their electricity as they do now.

In southern Sweden, we have for a longer period had to get used to skyrocketing electricity prices. Now we see how these are beginning to climb northward and are starting to approach electricity price areas 1 and 2. It is a very worrying development.

We electricity customers notice it in our wallets, but just as serious are the socio-economic consequences. In my home region of Skåne, companies have long been on their knees because of electricity prices. As recently as yesterday, I heard that several companies in Ystad, the engine of economic growth in Österlen, are now on the brink of bankruptcy solely because of their electricity bills. I say it again: It is a very worrying development.

Mr. Speaker! Until quite recently, Sweden was self-sufficient in electricity every day of the year and every hour of the day, regardless of the weather. A total of six fully functioning nuclear reactors have since been shut down. It is the result of the decisions that we are now living with.

When Ringhals 4 and Oskarshamn 3 are now placed in shutdown, it will have large and serious consequences for the entire Swedish energy system. Parts of southern Sweden, not least my hometown Malmö, risk having to be forcibly disconnected from the grid - so vulnerable we have made ourselves, and so strained is the situation for the energy system.

To so fundamentally destroy a well-functioning and competitive energy system should be neither possible nor legal. However, unfortunately, that is where we have ended up, and it is unfortunately Swedish families and companies that now have to bear the costs of the failed energy policy.

Mr. Speaker! We need a power system that delivers electricity when we need it and where we need it. We must be able to rely on there being electricity in the socket that we can afford to pay for. It must not be a system that is completely at the mercy of the weather.

The new government's energy policy goal is that Sweden shall move from a threatening electricity shortage to a surplus of fossil-free energy. In the short term, perhaps the most important priority is to vigorously help the Swedish families and companies that now have an enormous difficulty paying their electricity bills. The proposed electricity support is a first response to this. Let me emphasize the obvious: We shall never, ever have energy poverty in Sweden.

The support is a beginning, but we will need to follow the issue very closely moving forward.

Just extinguishing the fires that previous governments have started is not enough. We also need to lay the foundation to be able to meet the demand for energy even in the future. We see a doubling by perhaps 2040. It is absolutely necessary that we now make decisions on this if we are to succeed with the green re-industrialization in Norrland, to take one example.

That is why the government has presented a series of sharp proposals to maintain, develop, and expand both fossil-free and renewable energy production. It is about shortening the permit processes for all types of energy and about reviewing the Environmental Code and how it may need to be changed so that we can reach the climate goals faster. It is about giving mandates to the relevant authorities to begin the planning and procurement of new Swedish nuclear power.

It is also about quickly increasing all possible forms of energy production, reviewing the requirements for building permits for integrated solar cells, seeing how we can increase the incentives for municipalities to have wind power, and abolishing the waste incineration tax so that district heating can contribute to the electricity supply in the very strained situation that prevails now. Naturally, it is also about energy-saving measures and a national strategy for electricity saving.

It bears repeating: We are not in a situation where we can choose between different types of energy. It is not now that we should have a debate between the fossil-free and the renewable. We will need to maximize all energy production that is available in order to be able to create an energy system with better balance and more production. This applies, of course, not least in light of the war in Europe and Ukraine. Together with our European neighbors, we need to build a more stable foundation for the entire European energy policy in order to thereby strengthen European resilience.

Mr. Speaker! In the election, the voters gave the Liberals and the other coalition parties in the government a mandate to put Sweden on a new course. This applies to the highest degree to energy policy. It is my hope that more parties will want to join the line now established by the government, so that households in Sweden and the Swedish business community finally get the broad and stable support around energy policy that they have demanded for so long.

I therefore move for approval of the proposal in the committee's report on expenditure area 21 Energy.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Louise began her speech by saying that we have never had such an unstable electricity system as we do now. What is her source, and what is it that she is referring to?

She concluded the speech by saying something along the lines that we are not in a position where we can choose between types of energy, but need all energy production.

I wonder why the Liberals and the government, together with the Sweden Democrats, are pulling the rug out from under wind power and causing it to incur significantly increased costs. Wind power could, after all, deliver electricity in the near term.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! We have not had such an unstable system in modern times. I do not know where Miljöpartiet was last week when the press conference was held regarding the extremely strained situation in the Swedish energy supply. With Ringhals 4 and Oskarshamn 3 in shutdown, we have an extremely difficult situation when it comes to the Swedish energy supply. Warnings were issued that customers could need to be forcibly disconnected from the power grid in, among other places, southern Sweden and my hometown Malmö because there was a risk that the entire energy system would collapse. We have not experienced that in modern times.

Regarding wind power, the Liberals and the government believe that we need to have both fossil-free and renewable energy production. We cannot afford to choose. I have heard my colleagues say here tonight that it is very important to get more nuclear power in place, but that it is also very important to get, for example, offshore wind power in place. We will need both of these types of energy moving forward.

I do not agree that we would be pulling the rug out from under them. On the contrary, I think it has been emphasized several times during the debate by the government parties that both renewable and fossil-free energy production will be needed moving forward.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! What I referred to when I spoke about pulling the rug out is that in the Tidö Agreement it explicitly states that the wind power companies themselves shall cover the costs of the grid connection for offshore wind power, as well as that the companies themselves shall cover the resources for the municipalities so that they can establish themselves. It is unclear how much it will move; I have not seen any notification from the government regarding that. Louise Eklund is welcome to elaborate on how much the companies shall pay to the municipalities and in what way.

Both of these measures are strongly cost-driving for the establishment of wind power in a situation where you say that all types of energy are needed. Therefore, I wonder: Why make it more difficult for wind power production in a situation where we very clearly need more energy production? This applies particularly in southern Sweden, as you mentioned, where the electricity demand is greatest now.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! On the contrary – we write very clearly that the incentives to increase the willingness to have wind power in one's municipality need to be reviewed. From the government parties, we have been clear that it is absolutely necessary to look at different incentive structures and different economic compensations that may be needed to make it attractive to host wind power in one's home municipality. I think we are very clear about this. I also believe that this is an opportunity to increase the acceptance of wind power in different places, not least in southern Sweden.

The government parties' long-term ambition is a substantial expansion of all forms of energy production, both the renewable and the fossil-free. It is also our stated intention that all types of energy shall, in the long term, be able to bear their own costs; this applies to both wind power as well as nuclear power and other forms of energy production. The long-term ambition is that all types of energy shall be able to bear their own costs.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Member Louise Eklund mentioned something in her speech about the energy system or the electricity system being destroyed – I do not remember exactly what she said. I wonder which parts of the energy system or the electricity system, depending on which term was used, are destroyed. I work very much with energy issues and have done so for many years. I do not quite recognize this, so I request clarity on it.

I also want to comment on the concept of system collapse, which the member used in the previous exchange. It is very serious to say that we were close to system collapse last week. My picture, based on the information that was given, is that quite a few steps are taken before one disconnects. We have a reserve power and many other mechanisms in place in our system that can be utilized before such a thing occurs.

If in the worst case a disconnection were to occur, it happens in a specific order, and if one were to be the one who is disconnected, one would find out approximately one week in advance. Furthermore, we are talking, according to the description I received, about a normal power outage of approximately one and a half hours.

I am wondering, then, which parts of our energy system are broken.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! I hardly know where to begin. Thank you for the questions, member!

I am becoming almost a little concerned. My perception is that many in this chamber and hopefully also outside of it in recent weeks and months – or years, if one has lived in the southern parts of the country – have gradually seen electricity prices skyrocket and the system become increasingly unstable. There are often disruptions and problems with obtaining the amount of energy needed, when it is needed, in the southern parts of the country.

I thought this was obvious to most in this chamber and also outside of it. That one does not recognize themselves in the picture of the strained energy situation, I find it incredibly strange. I can hardly take it in.

It is against that background that we are now spending so much time debating the energy issue and how we can build a much more robust system. We need to start talking about capabilities in the system rather than individual types of energy.

I must correct something here. No reserve capacity exists, and that is the major problem that has also been debated very much in the southern parts of the country.

If a disconnection were to occur, one would not receive information one week in advance but 15 minutes in advance. That was what the Director General of Svenska kraftnät stated last week, so I must refer to her. But it could be that Miljöpartiet is in possession of other information.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the answer, or rather the non-answer. The question was not about whether it is a strained energy situation. We all know that. The question was about the member speaking about us having an unstable and destroyed energy system. That was what I was wondering about and what I asked about. What parts are it is that are destroyed?

It is obvious that we have a strained energy situation. No one is unaware of it. Russia is conducting an energy war as a direct consequence of its invasion of Ukraine. Reactors are standing still both in Sweden and in France. We have a common market. It affects the price, also for us. That is unfortunately how it looks.

My question was not about the energy situation being strained, but about the member expressing that we have a destroyed energy system.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! What I referred to is that it is no secret what the Liberals' view has been on nuclear power, the decisions to abolish it and that they do not want new nuclear power. This has had enormous consequences for the southern parts of the country where nuclear power was placed for the reason that, unfortunately, the same geographical conditions are lacking there as in the northern parts of the country for another type of energy production.

It has had enormous consequences, for example, that the Sydvästlänken was not completed until long after it was planned. We also do not have sufficient counter-force that allows us to utilize it in the way that was perhaps intended from the beginning. All in all, it has had enormous consequences for the southern parts of the country. The invasion of Ukraine has worsened that situation, but the consequences could be seen even before February this year.

However, I would like to highlight something that I was very happy to read about in the Green Party's submission, namely the need to actually integrate the European markets even further. That made me very happy. It stands in quite stark contrast to the nationalist energy policy that the Left Party pursues, and therefore it pleased me even more that the Green Party so clearly writes that we together need to create a stronger energy market in all of Europe. Thank you for that, and thank you for the questions!

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is beginning to approach the end of the speaking list.

The burning of fossil fuels has created almost 80 percent of the emissions of carbon dioxide or so-called greenhouse gases. It is therefore the main reason why the global average temperature is now rising at the fastest rate ever. Science has clearly shown how a warmer world negatively affects the possibility of human life, safety, and welfare.

Despite this, we still use fossil fuels everywhere in our societies. The problems with fossil fuels are, however, more. Putin's energy war against Europe has shown that the need for a transition from the fossil to the renewable is urgent also from a purely security perspective. We cannot continue to give rogue states the power to exert blackmail against democratic states by turning the fossil tap up and down depending on their mood.

Our fossil dependence is also a matter of economics. What sets the price of our electricity is actually the last produced kilowatt-hour - and in this case, it is about fossil gas. More renewable production is needed so that we can avoid having this expensive gas setting the price on our electricity bills.

All in all, this means that our dependence on fossil fuels means that, among other things, households are exposed to enormous risks. No family should have to leave their house and home and no companies should have to go bankrupt due to skyrocketing energy prices.

What do we then need to do to get rid of our harmful fossil dependency and decarbonize? We must electrify large parts of our society. It is about both how we transport ourselves and how we produce goods. It will result in electricity consumption doubling - if not more - by 2045, according to many assessors and as we have also heard previously here in the chamber.

This does not only require a larger energy production. We also need a more efficient use of energy and a smart power grid that can handle this development. It is actually very good news because we have fantastic knowledge, innovative technological development, and good knowledge of energy and power systems here in Sweden.

In addition to this, we also need, of course, fair support systems that help those who, particularly under the current crisis, have been caught in a bind.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet wants to invest heavily in renewable and cheap energy production. We are allocating a full 12 billion to that investment.

Wind power is today the cheapest source of electricity. This has resulted in companies now queuing to build at Sweden's best wind locations. Svenska kraftnät has received over 70 applications for offshore wind farms, corresponding to several times Sweden's electricity demand.

It is a fantastic development, but one cannot take it for granted. If the government does not come to its senses and climbs out of the energy policy trench it has dug itself into, the wind power companies will turn to other parts of the world where the conditions for establishment are more favorable and new renewable electricity production is welcomed.

In order for this positive development regarding the development of renewable energy to continue, a powerful, conscious, and consistent policy is needed. It is not sufficient to point out nuclear power as the preferred type of power and to make it more difficult and set up obstacles for connecting offshore wind power as reflected in the Tidö Agreement.

The local benefit has not been taken into sufficient account, we believe. I spoke myself with a farmer on Öland some time ago who had initially been very negative towards wind power in his vicinity, but thanks to a good management of that establishment, that person now only looks with joy when the wind turbine spins, because that person knows that they get more money in their pocket then.

That is how Miljöpartiet wants everyone to see it. Of course, there should be competition for this production! But then it must also provide local benefit. The climate and energy benefit that, for example, municipalities and regions contribute must also pay off locally and regionally. Therefore, in our major initiative, we propose that there should be a local electricity bonus that pays municipalities and regions for the renewable electricity that is produced. There, we propose 10 million kronor for each already installed terawatt-hour and 30 million kronor for each new terawatt-hour. That will be a total of 3.6 billion. It is an initiative that we want to see continue until 2050, a long-term initiative that provides a lot of money to school, healthcare, and elderly care plus lower prices on electricity.

Mr. Speaker! To tackle the challenges we face in the long term, more effective use of the energy we already have is also required. The overwhelmingly fastest way to reduce the extremely difficult consequences that both households and companies are affected by is energy efficiency – to do more with less.

The measures that the government has now put forward are both belated and insufficient. Not only is it the case that there is a lack of proposals from the government – the government parties have also shot down all the initiatives that the previous SMP government took to make Sweden's use of energy more efficient.

In the budget that the right-wing conservatives - the current government parties and the Sweden Democrats - pushed through a year ago, when Putin had already launched his energy war and electricity prices had already begun to skyrocket, support for energy efficiency that today would have provided cheaper electricity to households and companies across Sweden was slaughtered.

We also need to use energy more smartly, not just more efficiently. There is smart technology that can help us manage our electricity use so that we use more when it is cheaper and less during, for example, peak load hours. There are smart solutions for managing electricity and heating so that energy is used in a smarter way, fully automated. All thanks to rapid technological development and capable actors on the Swedish market who can help both households and companies use electricity and power more smartly.

This smart grid technology can also help to utilize the slack that exists in the electricity system. Is there slack in the electricity system? Yes, think about it. The absolute majority of customers, both households and companies, have a subscription or a fuse that is adapted for the few, if any, occasions per year when the maximum load is used. The rest of the time, this space is booked, so to speak, but unused. If everyone acts in this way, which the absolute majority do, there is a lot of slack in the system. If we had better control over when we use the energy, this unused part of the grid could be utilized by others. It would become a fantastic complement to smarter, more efficient electricity use and new production. And the best of all is that it can be achieved in a very short time.

Miljöpartiet therefore proposes that the state should cover 80 percent of the cost for all energy efficiency measures, including this type of smart control technology, in both apartment buildings and villas and for both individual households and companies. This ensures that less energy is used and energy is used more intelligently, plus we push down the prices on the total.

The development of a more flexible use and more renewables in our system places demands on our energy system. Therefore, we are also investing 400 million in technology that can help to balance the grid. We also want to invest in test areas, perhaps areas where there are large needs for energy and power today, to develop and test both business models and new technology for flexible production, flexible consumption, and flexible power grids.

Mr. Speaker! During the election campaign, Ulf Kristersson and Ebba Busch promised Swedish voters that support would be available for households and companies as early as November 1. But as is known, our current government base says one thing before the election and another thing after.

The message now is that only some of Sweden's households, not all, receive the support and that those who receive it will have it paid out first in February. The companies have not received any real information at all. While the government tries to untangle itself from its half-truths, the companies are left with the bills. And if the payments ever come, at some point during next year, there is a risk that many of the companies that really needed the money have already gone bankrupt.

The support is also poorly designed. Billionaires in southern Sweden receive hundreds of thousands of kronor in support while poor pensioners, single parents and small business owners in northern Sweden do not receive a single krona in support. It is actually not wise.

Providing support to households and companies is not our primary policy, but in a time of skyrocketing prices for many necessary goods and services, it is absolutely necessary. Therefore, Miljöpartiet wants to broaden the government's support to also include households and companies in northern Sweden.

Northern Sweden has taken a great responsibility in the expansion of cheap electricity, but now that Putin's energy war is raising prices, the government is leaving the people in the north to their fate. At the same time, the government and its party comrades in the municipalities are thus stopping both the expansion of cheap electricity in southern Sweden and investments in energy efficiency. The right is therefore largely responsible for the energy crisis we find ourselves in but refuses to take responsibility for the consequences it has for Sweden's citizens.

We have exploited Norrbotten. We have mining and hydropower, and it has largely been the engine of the Swedish economy for a very long time. Now it is also part of the engine in the transition thanks to the green transition in the industry there. It is therefore shameful to exclude northern Sweden completely from support.

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

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Late this evening, we are debating the report on expenditure area 21 Energy. I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the proposal and the rejection of the motions.

In this debate on the expenditure area for energy, Sweden is taking a new course within the energy field.

With the new goal, fossil-free power in the form of nuclear power provides completely different conditions for the country. In addition, it is built upon with other types of power, all of which are important. We are talking about solar and wind power and the regulating power that exists in hydropower.

Predictable and stable electricity supply is needed in the country. With the new policy, nuclear power is given a role as a natural part of the power system that is necessary to restore security of supply and secure electricity supply.

We are making investments in research and innovation and to strengthen the competence at the agencies that are important for the development of nuclear power.

In order to accommodate and be able to work with efficient and rapid permit processes for both the expansion of the electricity grid and new production, the energy market production is provided with means to meet increased demands.

The goal of the energy policy is to strengthen the country's competitiveness and reduce consumers' vulnerability to high electricity prices.

In this budget, we passed earlier this week that the waste incineration tax shall be removed, just like the carbon tax on combined heat and power plants, so that they can produce more. At the same time, Svenska kraftnät has been tasked with procuring more electricity. We simply need more electricity production. This will increase electricity production in the short term.

With the budget, we ensure that houses and homes can be made more energy-efficient, which will save electricity. It is aimed at the direct electricity, which is found in small houses.

We ensure that the deductions when installing solar cells become larger. You get 5 percent more - previously it was 15 percent; now it is 20 - so that more electricity can be produced in the local area.

Investments are being made in research and innovation regarding nuclear power as well as research within the field of radiation safety.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that it is with enormous frustration that I observe that our robust and stable system of fossil-free base power across the entire country is being dismantled by the Social Democratic government and the parties that have supported removing important nuclear power from the country.

It cannot be ignored that the removed base load in Southern Sweden has created a least-said less robust electricity system and that we have received higher electricity prices which have now shot up significantly. It is serious.

Now, warning signs are emerging regarding the risk of both power outages and disconnection. Furthermore, fluctuations in electricity prices are occurring because we in Sweden no longer have stable and predictable electricity production.

We are a number of members of Parliament who, over a number of years, have debated the situation in southern Sweden with a blind and deaf government with an energy minister who also had the bad taste to mock Skåne and that there is no wind, which was sad. This can be seen in the question period on 14 October 2021 and in an interpellation debate shortly thereafter, on 19 October, when I highlighted the tragic nature of mocking the situation.

I have spent time reading the debates, and all of you who follow the debate or perhaps look at the Riksdag's website afterwards since it is now late evening can take note of the warnings and pleas that have been made along the way.

In Dagens industri on December 8, 2020, for example, a number of companies expressed their views on the situation for the business sector due to growing problems with security of supply and price fluctuations on the electricity market. Svenska kraftnät was one of several actors who pointed to a strained situation.

We requested that the government at the time, as the owner and responsible party for Vattenfall, act, have a discussion and look at continued operation without preconditions - for the climate, the economy, and the stability of the system. That is what they chose not to do.

We had a vote in the Riksdag, where the Social Democrats together with the Center Party, the Left Party and the Green Party chose to vote to close Ringhals reactor 1. The government could have acted to keep it.

What happens if an electricity crisis occurs, that was the question. The Minister for Energy received questions: Does the government see an alternative to Ringhals 1, and what do we do if an electricity crisis were to occur this winter - the one that was - or next summer or in the future? These were questions that were asked by a party colleague.

The County Administrative Board wrote about the concern regarding the situation: Only in recent weeks have new reports emerged that the answer to concrete inquiries regarding investments in Skåne is that the capacity for connection is lacking and that it can be handled at the earliest in two or three years. Industrial companies are warning that they may be forced to move their production due to the uncertain situation, if they have not already done so.

All of you who are listening to or watching this afterwards can state that Pågen was one of the companies that first came out and signaled.

After this came the winter of 2021, and in February 2022 came the invasion of Ukraine. That Sweden is in an energy crisis is completely clear. Companies and households are struggling with sky-high electricity prices, and there is a reason why we have ended up where we are now.

A situation with an increased risk of blackouts and disconnection of the grid is being signaled. It is appalling, and I attribute it partly to the fact that fully functioning nuclear power, Ringhals 1 and 2, has been shut down, as you have previously heard others mention. The opposition denies this, but that cannot be done, I believe.

I would like to once again move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of the motions.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! How wonderful to be able to conclude tonight's show!

Sweden deserves a robust and secure electricity system that ensures access to cheap electricity throughout the country, when we need it, with as few and small risks as possible. The climate transition also requires that electricity production is expanded at a pace that allows us to manage the transition and the Paris Agreement. Not least the green industrial revolution demonstrates the need for a rapid expansion now in the near term, and there wind power and solar will be central, as these can be implemented quickly.

We are also in an energy crisis, and from the Miljöpartiet's side, we are very clear: This must be handled promptly and efficiently, with large investments in energy efficiency, increased electricity production in the near term, and an electricity price subsidy provided based on need throughout the country.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 20 December.)

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