Energy

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! A year ago, I stood here and felt very hopeful. We had recently entered into the Tidö Agreement, which on paper meant a significant departure from the previous completely irresponsible policy in several areas, including the energy sector.

The past year, Madam Speaker, has not disappointed me despite my impatience. Even though it is faster to break down what works than to build up what has been demolished, we have clearly moved from words to action during the past year. We have taken important steps on the way toward once again obtaining a robust, secure, and competitive energy system.

We have updated the directives - the regulatory letters - to the relevant authorities and business entities. We have paved the way for more nuclear power by first changing the energy policy goal from 100 percent renewable to 100 percent fossil-free and subsequently ensuring the removal of the laws that for too long have prevented both the expansion and new construction of nuclear power in Sweden. To increase the willingness to invest, we have also provided credit guarantees of 400 billion kronor targeted at nuclear power projects.

Madam Speaker! During the previous parliamentary term, the Social Democratic government ensured that well-functioning, predictable, and fossil-free nuclear power was shut down. This happened despite warnings of consequences such as rising prices, poorer transmission capacity, and power shortages, particularly in southern Sweden, and despite all its own forecasts of a future increased electricity demand, not least as a result of electrification. All of this was also done without ensuring that there was sufficient power and regulating capacity.

The opposition now, fascinatingly, stands in the wake of its own irresponsible policy and cries out for even more of the same medicine. They want to bring even more weather-dependent - non-plannable - energy into the Swedish energy system, despite the fact that Sweden now has Europe's worst power balance and high and volatile prices, and despite the fact that the alarm reports regarding just wind power are appearing more and more frequently.

It is often said, not least by the opposition, that wind power is fast, green and cheap and that the investors - not least the foreign ones - are queuing to invest in Sweden. I have said it before, and I will say it again: If something seems too good to be true, it usually is.

What does it actually look like? Yes, Madam Speaker, the fact is that we currently have a thousand wind farms on Swedish soil that are bankrupt. I will take one of the clearest examples to illustrate part of the problems when it comes to wind power specifically.

Outside Piteå, one of Sweden's and one of Europe's largest wind power projects, Markbygden Ett, is underway. The work on the facilities began with great pomp and ceremony about 15 years ago. In the company of both royalty and top politicians, the then Minister for Enterprise and Center Party politician Maud Olofsson was honored to break ground. The enthusiasm was great, and a few years later, Piteå Municipality's energy manager Erik Persson said that every resident of Piteå should celebrate with palt and champagne.

Today, it is more a time for mourning than for champagne, as the company, which is otherwise owned by the Chinese state, has applied for reconstruction. Large losses are attributed to an unfavorable electricity agreement with Norsk Hydro. Simply put, they have locked themselves into an agreement that requires delivery of electricity at a certain price even when there is no wind. The price has not been anywhere near the levels the company has been able to obtain for its own electricity production.

In the application for reconstruction, complaints are also made about how wind power has cannibalized itself. It is, in my opinion, a well-chosen expression as it reflects part of the problems with weather-dependent types of energy. Although wind power has until now not had to bear the additional costs it entails for the electricity system as a whole, the large, ill-considered expansion has also resulted in wind power becoming a bad business in many places, not only for the electricity customers and the taxpayers but also for itself. When it is very windy, wind power generates a lot of electricity, which in turn leads to an oversupply and very low or even negative prices. Conversely, prices are high when it is not windy, but then one cannot deliver. In those cases, other types of power must step in, and that is done at high prices.

Madam Speaker! There are, however, several explanations for why the company is now under reconstruction. Over the last three years, it has paid significantly higher interest to its Chinese parent company than to lending banks, and in that way, it has drained the company of over 200 million kronor. At the same time, it has received hundreds of millions in tax funds from Sweden via the so-called electricity certificates. In addition, it has not compensated the local population for disturbances in the immediate vicinity, which it had promised.

With this setup, which is used by many more, it is not strange that foreign venture capital companies are literally lining up to invest in Sweden.

One could ask what the reactions would have been here at home if a foreign owner in another industry had received the same special support, milked out hundreds of millions from the taxpayers and, with their operations, lowered property values and destroyed nature while simultaneously making the Swedish company bankrupt. I guess the criticism would have been enormous, not least from the Left and the Social Democrats who often and with some justification speak about the immorality of a capitalist economy where profits are private while risks, costs, and losses are borne by the public, by the taxpayers.

But when it comes to the so-called green transition, the criticism is strangely absent. The debate is silenced, and critical questions are dismissed. It is harmful. Why? Well, because poorer decisions are made and higher risks are taken, and the ground is being prepared for subsidy entrepreneurs and all kinds of fraudsters who see their chance to enrich themselves at the public's expense to little benefit for both electricity customers and taxpayers in the end.

Madam Speaker! A systems perspective has long been lacking in Swedish energy policy. Electricity production needs to be secure and profitable, not only for the producer but also for the electricity consumer, the grid provider, the environment, and society as a whole.

But as we Sweden Democrats say: Reality will sooner or later catch up with the Social Democrats as well. Recently, we received a report in which the Social Democrats, a few decades after us, finally updated their social analysis regarding the effects of irresponsible immigration policy. Now we look forward to the upcoming report *Föregångslandet Sverige - världsledande industri, ökad elproduktion och mer billig el* in which I hope for significantly better analyses than the current one that Sweden needs more weather-dependent types of energy.

Madam Speaker! I conclude my speech by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal. I also want to thank my colleagues and others in the committee as well as the chair for good cooperation and wish everyone a Merry Christmas.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Jessica Stegrud began her speech by telling how satisfied she was with the work of the past year. It is always good that people are happy and satisfied with what they do during the day, but not everyone is quite as satisfied with the development as Jessica Stegrud; on the contrary, they are quite concerned.

Late this week, a new report from Industrirådet was released, pointing out that Swedish industry needs approximately 60-70 terawatt-hours more electricity by 2030. After listening to Jessica Stegrud's speech, I can state that they did not receive a single answer to any of the questions they pose in their report. What does the government and the government base intend to do so that the industry will have the opportunity to develop, transition, expand, and become more successful?

Very many jobs are at stake. In positive terms, it could involve 50,000 new jobs over a few years. But companies that are not given the opportunity to transition risk their entire competitiveness, and then jobs risk disappearing. I gladly take the positive approach to this issue, because we have fantastic opportunities. But there is obviously a risk if these problems are not solved by 2030.

In a budget debate concerning the money for next year and possibly an additional year further into the future, one needs to have answers to the question of what is being done here and now so that we, up until 2030, and actually every year until then, shall get more electricity into our system. Jessica Stegrud should be able to answer this here.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

It is always interesting to hear Social Democrats talk about the planning for the coming years, because what were the Social Democrats and the previous government occupied themselves with a few years ago? Well, they decommissioned fossil-free, predictable nuclear power without a thought for the upcoming increasing demand for electricity and the power capacity issues that it has caused, despite warnings from Svenska kraftnät and warnings about volatile, rising prices, power shortages, and so on. But now we stand here, Madam Speaker, and wonder what will happen in the coming years. It is incredibly interesting.

I understand the mantra "here and now," because the politics that have been pursued previously have been incredibly harmful. We see this primarily in southern Sweden, where I am now a resident, where companies cannot establish themselves or expand, and how people are extremely concerned about the power situation. Now, the Tidösamarbetet has ensured that trading of power and balancing capacity has begun in southern Sweden, which should have been at the top of the previous government's priority list given the closures they caused.

Where will the power come from in the coming years? Yes, we are working very hard on that, because now it is realpolitik that matters. I myself have suggested that one can increase the power output from combined heat and power, something some members' parties have also tried to reduce. But there are many other solutions, and here one will need to be creative.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Jessica Stegrud is using the model for the debate that we have heard for quite a long time, where it is claimed that political decisions have been made to shut down planned power, even though those who have done so have been clear about which commercial decisions they have made. What we have done politically has rather been the opposite. We have removed the electricity tax and made it easier for nuclear power. That is the development that Sweden has had since 2016, and I think that policy has been good. We have entered into such an agreement and naturally stand by it.

But no historical description, whether it is mine or Jessica Stegrud's, helps the companies that want more electricity during the coming years to develop their operations, strengthen their competitiveness, transition and remove fossil emissions, which they cannot have if they want to sell their products to develop what is new and can be successful.

Jessica Stegrud and her party have reached the position of being in power. It is therefore to you that the questions are posed – precisely the questions I began the exchange with. What do you intend to do to produce the 60-70 terawatt-hours that the industry demands? It is an answer that you do not want to give, and I think it is reasonable in a budget debate to point out what measures and steps one is prepared to take to meet the challenge. The alternative is what we often hear from some of the right-wing parties and right-wing commentators, namely that this industrial development should not happen. That is where you actually stand.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! The member and the Social Democrats should have thought about this a bit earlier. Sweden was so well-prepared for the industrial development that is occurring now. We were well-prepared for a transition with fossil-free, planned, large-scale nuclear power – but that was abandoned, and now they do not even want to take responsibility for it but instead blame the commercial conditions. That is true! I have stood here in the speaker's chair and said that many times. But it is the politics that sets the conditions, and if one does not even understand that, I become very worried.

What is to be done in the coming years? Well, above all, it is not more electricity and more of the same medicine we need. We need predictable power. I think the member and the Social Democrats, with their incredibly offensive goal of 60 terawatt-hours by 2030, should be held accountable regarding where the balancing and regulating power shall come from.

Sweden exports more electricity than ever but has a worse power balance than ever. It is therefore not a market in balance. We do not have a power system in balance. To then push with even more weather-dependent electricity production is not the whole solution.

Furthermore, the member's party failed to approve any new wind farms during the previous parliamentary term. That is what is being pursued. That was not achieved during their eight years in power, but now it has certainly become urgent when one no longer sits at the government table. I therefore believe that the Social Democrats are solely responsible. Where is the regulatory and balancing power to come from in the offensive objective they have?

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I had also intended to speak about 2030 and the needs there, but we hear from the Sweden Democrats that attack is the best defense and that it will probably not receive an answer as to what they intend to do, so I am changing the subject completely – but we will, of course, still stick to the energy issue.

Something that the Sverigedemokraterna and the Centerpartiet seem to agree on is incentives for municipalities and regions when it comes to, among other things, new electricity production. The Sverigedemokraterna have in surveys, debates, and other contexts said that they want to see new economic incentives for municipalities and regions. Therefore, Jessica Stegrud, I am very curious about when those decisions will come from the Sverigedemokraterna and the government.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! I have no concrete answer to that question. It is important that the municipalities that are, after all, burdened by various establishments receive adequate compensation. It is obvious. It is something that I believe is being investigated at the moment.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I can inform the member that the investigation was completed already last spring. It has been fully referred and is still on the government's desk, gathering dust.

It would be very good if the commission's proposals could be implemented. That is why I ask the question whether the Sweden Democrats are prepared to ensure that the proposals from the commission that is completed and fully submitted are actually also implemented by the government, to which the Sweden Democrats are a supporting party. It would be very welcome.

This obviously does not only apply to wind power. In my opinion, it applies to all power production and preferably industrial premises and other things as well. But the question is whether the Sweden Democrats are prepared to push the government to implement the proposals in the investigation that exists and has been fully submitted.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! As Rickard Nordin understands, this is not a top priority right now, but there is a bill in progress where the completely new direction for Swedish energy policy moving forward will be clarified more clearly. I must therefore refer to that or to my colleagues in the Tidö cooperation.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I have two simple questions.

Do the members know how the electricity certificate system is financed? There was a hint of something else.

Do the Sweden Democrats believe in the green transition with the help of hydrogen, which large investors are now flagging, and where hydrogen will be an input to reduce what we do with coal today? Do the Sweden Democrats believe in that technology?

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the questions! Yes, I know how the electricity certificate system is financed. I guess it was a point regarding whether it is the taxpayers who bear that subsidy. One could say that it is, indirectly. Everything ultimately burdens electricity customers and taxpayers.

The next question was whether I believe in hydrogen as a large-scale solution, Madam Speaker. I can say this: It is incredibly inefficient and therefore also very expensive with hydrogen storage or converting hydrogen into electricity. I believe it involves losses of 70 percent, which would mean incredibly high costs.

My question is why one should enter into a system that is not fully proven and which will probably be extremely much more expensive than what we already had in the form of well-functioning systems and large-scale fossil-free electricity production, where we did not need to spend billions to balance the grid. It is also something that is increasing exponentially. In the wake of all weather-dependent power, the balancing costs have gone from 1 to an estimated 20 billion per year over the last five years. It is expected to just continue.

Hydrogen production already takes place all over Europe, and if one were to make it fossil-free, it would require as much power as all of France. That is when one understands the proportions in this.

I do not believe in that solution, even though I am open to new technologies. We will have to see what the future brings, but it does not look promising.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer from the Sweden Democrats and Member Stegrud. It was a good message to the industrial investors in northern Sweden that the Sweden Democrats do not believe in the technology that, for example, LKAB advocates for, as they intend to invest 400 billion over ten years and other investors are queuing up with an additional 600 billion. Their technology is based on hydrogen and reduction via electric arc furnaces. The message about what the Sweden Democrats, who are the basis for the government, believe in has been conveyed, and they know what to expect.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! I spoke primarily about energy storage, because I thought that was what we were talking about. Otherwise, I do not interfere with new technologies; I do not think that is the role of politics. If one sees a future in this and is prepared to invest money, one can do so. On the other hand, I do not think that a lot of tax money should go to high-risk projects. One must be able to report the risks and answer the simple questions of where the power will come from, who will provide all the infrastructure, and so on. These are questions that I have asked many times here in the chamber.

As politicians, we should not choose types of technology in the first place, but rather pave the way for good conditions. My message to the industry is that they should come forward with good business ideas that are viable and can withstand scrutiny, and where the risks are reasonable when tax money is to be spent. Then I am for it.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! In the Riksdag, during the month of December, there is a single long row of budget debates, and as everyone has surely noticed, we have now come to the energy policy. This occurs in a situation where Sweden is becoming poorer. Ten years of real wage increases have been erased. The Christmas food - to take a current example - has never been more expensive.

One can say that the government is now also pushing through a "steel bath" within health and medical care. The development in the Swedish economy is the weakest in the EU, and according to the government, we should expect increased unemployment.

The industrial transition and new industrialization, which is a powerful locomotive for investments in more jobs, in better-paid jobs, and in competitiveness, is being questioned, as we just heard, perhaps especially by the largest party in the government base.

The Government and SD are also putting forward large savings aimed at Swedish innovation capacity and development power. The Tidö parties simply do not act as if they want industrial development. The Ministers are probably happy to cut ribbons and inaugurate things that were started earlier, but the attitude towards the transition is still questioned on the right in politics. It is regrettable.

In the debate on the budget frameworks for 2024 held here a few weeks ago, this very development was attacked harshly by the Sverigedemokraterna, and not even the Finance Minister could really stand up and give the positive news that the industry needs for the future.

We also see a series of missing announcements regarding the rapid expansion of electricity production and distribution required to enable a powerful development. The conditions for wind power have deteriorated. Finished proposals that would simplify the regulations have been put in the desk drawer at the Government Offices instead of being implemented into law.

Even in the area of energy, the policy should therefore have a different direction and a higher tempo. The government's and the Sweden Democrats' one-eyed energy policy simply threatens Swedish industry and Swedish jobs. If we do not expand energy production here and now, large investments and new companies risk ending up in other countries.

Even though Sweden is a large electricity exporter, more electricity will be needed every year from now and into the 2030s to match the increased demand, which is requested by the industry in particular. It is a prerequisite for prosperity and for securing new jobs and low electricity prices.

If production does not increase, we will soon become dependent on others. Therefore, a different policy is needed than the one the government has presented. We need to maintain the instructions to Svenska kraftnät to bring more offshore wind production into the grids, prioritize the expansion of the electricity grid in Sweden over, for example, a new cable to Germany, say yes to the offshore wind farms that are waiting on the government's desk, and implement the finished proposals that already exist when it comes to better decision-making and permit processes for electricity production and for expanding our electricity grids.

Madam Speaker! Nuclear power is also an important part of the Swedish electricity mix. Already in 2016, we took a position on the possibility of building new nuclear power. It was an S-government that tasked the authorities to keep pace with technical developments, not least when it comes to the regulatory frameworks for small modular reactors. We have also stood behind proposals to make it possible to build more reactors, but not in more locations.

Nuclear power, however, takes a long time to build. Sweden's electricity supply needs to be secured for this and the coming mandate period so that Sweden does not now lose out on the investments and jobs that the industry wants to create. Companies will decide on the location of their large investments already during the very nearest years, and some have already begun. Without large annual supplements, we risk losing out on that.

It is time for the government to stand behind more ambitious goals in the shorter term. We have, for example, proposed a new energy policy goal for 2030. If the government does not succeed in this mission, Sweden risks missing the investment train.

If the government does not do more to provide more electricity, one should at least do more to achieve increased energy efficiency. Space is also created for new jobs that need electricity if others use their potential for efficiency.

We Social Democrats propose increased state interventions so that not only certain single-family houses can receive support. We want, for example, to raise the subsidy rate in the rotavdrag to 50 percent and direct it entirely towards energy efficiency. Since the government base has designed the policy so that multi-family buildings do not receive a share of the measures, we want, on the contrary, to ensure that they do in the future. Additionally, we want to make it easier for real estate companies to become an active party in the work of increasing security of supply.

The Social Democratic government commissioned an investigator in 2021 to propose a certificate system for energy efficiency. The purpose was to achieve a market-based and cost-effective steering instrument to increase the pace of energy efficiency and thereby contribute to the energy and climate policy goals. The new government decided to scrap this investigation, which I find highly regrettable. Becoming more efficient is an important part, and the work should be resumed.

Madam Speaker! Simplifications of regulations are being requested on a broad front. Today's system for land-based wind power is not legally secure. There are now examples of permits being revoked even though they have been held for a long time and even have had time to order their turbines.

Improving the process and increasing the municipal incentives to accept more wind power is necessary, and there are already proposals. Some of these the right-wing parties have, admittedly, voted against. It is time for them to change their minds. Other proposals have been referred for consultation and are ready to be included in a government bill. This applies in particular to the issue of building the electricity grid faster. In our budget proposal, we suggest that EI should receive additional resources to shorten its permit processes.

Madam Speaker! Since the Riksdag has already decided on other budget frameworks than those we would like to see and since we consider our budget alternative to be a whole, there is no reservation for me to move for approval. We abstain from taking a position and instead describe in a separate statement how we want to see the policy.

In addition to more money for energy efficiency and more resources for shortened permit processes, we want to see credit guarantees of 400 billion SEK targeted at all large-scale fossil-free energy production. I also do not think the Riksdag should agree to and approve Hansa Power Bridge, the new German cable that is in Svenska kraftnät's investment plan and which the Riksdag is thus expected to stand behind. More can be read about this in our special statement.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize that Sweden needs responsible and broad agreements. This is required to enable long-term investment decisions. It is good and well to have goals and plans until 2045, but as a government and government base, one is also obliged to have a plan to get electricity in the coming years. It is high time that these answers start being delivered.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Fredrik Olovsson, for the speech! We share the view on a great deal of the problem picture and a good deal of the solutions as well.

The Chairman of the Committee had an exchange of remarks with the Sweden Democrats and pointed out that the industry wants between 60 and 70 terawatt-hours by 2030, but there the needs of, for example, the transport sector have not been included.

It can also be thought that there will be more people in the country who use more electricity overall, so the needs may perhaps land significantly higher than 60-70 terawatt-hours, perhaps rather 80 terawatt-hours. The Social Democrats' goal is 60 terawatt-hours, and my question to Fredrik Olovsson therefore becomes: Which projects is it that the Social Democrats intend not to be completed, given that one has a much lower goal than what the industry itself has?

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question. We have designed our goal to be at least 60 terawatt-hours.

I will say that things are happening quite fast in this area as well. There will be a considerable amount of new production in the coming years, and we naturally have a somewhat better position now. But when the policy that Jessica Stegrud and the other parties on the right wing are now pursuing takes effect, it will naturally look worse. In the nearest years, the pace will look decent. But the demands on the government parties to present a plan for how to reach at least 60 terawatt-hours by 2030, I think, are highly relevant.

Then we consider it important to be able to have an even higher pace in order to enable even more investments. But it is a tough goal that we have set, and it would be very good if the government parties joined the goal that at least 60 terawatt-hours need to be produced by 2030.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I share the criticism of the government parties with Fredrik Olovsson - let alone that. But when the industry itself speaks of 70 terawatt-hours - as shown, for example, by the report from SKGS - and then an additional amount in the transport sector and elsewhere, the sum becomes more than the minimum 60 terawatt-hours that the Social Democrats have as a goal.

We in the Center Party submitted a report nearly two years ago with a planning framework of 100 terawatt-hours, precisely to show that we probably need everything we can get. It stated how this could be done and that these potentials exist.

My question therefore remains. The Social Democrats have a goal of at least 60 terawatt-hours and say that it is the minimum level, but the industry itself says that the minimum level is at 70 terawatt-hours plus transport. Then one might end up at around 80 terawatt-hours, and then 20 terawatt-hours are missing for the minimum level.

So if we just implement the Social Democrats' goal regarding the minimum level, it is that project that falls apart. Which industrial projects is it that the Social Democrats intend should not get their electricity?

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! We naturally want production to increase at the same rate as the needs and demand. One can calmly say that if we look back just a few years, the development is quite dramatic. Something has truly happened here when more and more companies look at their own operations and conclude that they need to transition. And others see fantastic opportunities to develop new operations and new products right here in Sweden to win new markets. Here we naturally have, fundamentally, very large opportunities.

What concerns me is not that we are not ambitious enough in our objective – it is very high – but that the government does not even seem to have any plans to reach even this goal, let alone see the great needs that exist in the industry or even think that this is worth achieving.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! I hear here how the member, who during previous speeches has tried to hold two positions at the same time regarding nuclear power, is very clear today that nuclear power is needed and that the Social Democrats have been in favor of nuclear power as far back as 2016.

At the same time, the member and the Social Democrats have consistently voted no to the proposals on new nuclear power that the government base has actually presented here in the chamber. It is therefore very difficult to try to understand what position the Social Democratic energy policy should take when it comes to nuclear power specifically. One cannot be both for and against it at the same time. It is a magic trick that I do not think even the Social Democrats can manage.

Why do the Social Democrats vote against nuclear power in this chamber if they are now so much for it?

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I believe that Louise Eklund is referring to the latest vote we had regarding a first step for new nuclear power, where we Social Democrats do not want to implement the policy that the Liberals want to implement. But we submitted our own proposals to allow more reactors than ten at the sites where we already have nuclear activities today. That was our way of taking a step further in the development we have had since 2016. It was then that this became very clear, and the regulations were opened up so that we could build more nuclear power in Sweden. It was a broad agreement, where the Liberals were not included, but most of the other parties in the Riksdag were, which meant that one could build up to ten new reactors.

Now we think that the technical development taking place, and that many actors are talking about wanting to build small modular reactors, means that it is reasonable to imagine more reactors than the ten. Therefore, we voted for that type of limitations should be lifted. I think that fundamentally it is not so difficult.

However, that vote is in no way anything that solves the problems I have raised in my speech regarding the fact that we need more electricity as early as 2030 in order to manage the large industrial establishments that are now in the pipeline and where decisions are needed. Decisions are primarily needed from the government on how they intend to solve the issue of the industry's needs. I hope that Louise Eklund and her comrades in the government parties can now tell us about this in the continued debate.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! We are in absolute agreement regarding the great need ahead where nuclear power will be important.

If we are to look back at the broad agreement, which the member spoke about, the Liberals were not part of it precisely because nuclear power was excluded so that it would not be fossil-free goals but renewable. This is one of the important shifts that this government has initiated.

For me, the question of nuclear power specifically becomes almost binary – either one is for it, or one is against it. If one is for it, one understands the need to expand that type of energy production throughout the country – not least in the southern parts where we do not have the possibility of hydropower or any other type of energy production that involves other advantages and not just the production itself, so to speak – which is also predictable and provides an added value to the electricity system.

For me, it is therefore strange that the member and the member's party, Socialdemokraterna, have this ambiguous attitude that they are a bit for and a bit against and cannot quite decide which direction the energy policy should take.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! There is no doubt that Louise Eklund and the Liberals are very positive towards nuclear power. I believe that has become clear. I believe they are so positive towards nuclear power that they don't really care about what it costs either. It is an aspect that I think is highly essential to include in this discussion.

When building the future electricity system, we and most others see that nuclear power has an important role to play – also new nuclear power, as I have just explained. But it is clear that there are limits to how much money can be spent on such a system. We also need to ensure that nuclear power has sufficiently low prices so that we remain competitive. Otherwise, these investments will not come to fruition in any case. And then nuclear power will have no outlet for the electricity it can produce at any point – if, moreover, after a fairly long time.

Therefore, I can very well imagine that we need to have a continued debate on nuclear power. But if we do not get these industries in place now during the next five, six, seven, or eight years, the electricity needs in Sweden in the longer term will be much smaller than according to the very promising forecasts that we have today.

That is why I also believe it would be good if the Liberals concentrated on how to get these investments actually made – that people build and get started. Then one must also have information on what happens with the electricity in the coming years, specifically those years when Louise Eklund's party is also in government.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by moving to approve the Committee on Industry's proposal for a decision.

With purposeful steps, the government and the Tidö parties are taking Sweden towards a reality-based energy policy and a stable and well-functioning power system.

The time when Swedish energy policy was based on fantasies, gambles, and political pipe dreams is increasingly being left behind. In this budget, the Government takes a number of important steps to provide Swedish citizens and companies with the power system they deserve. The realignment within Swedish energy policy is clear. Previous governments beat their chests and spoke only about energy from weather-dependent power sources. With a new government, the direction of energy policy is now focused on power capacity, local transmission capacity, frequency stability, and how to create a functioning power system as a whole.

Madam Speaker! I intended, above all, to focus on two important parts of the government's budget. First concerns regional electricity planning, an area that was ignored for a long time under the previous government but where the current government is making a welcome investment.

The best way to handle problems is to solve them before they arise. A deterrent example of what it can look like when problems are not handled in advance is electricity area 4, which means among other things Skåne and a large part of Småland, including the enterprising Gnosjö region, which I have the privilege of representing in the Swedish Parliament. There is not a single company that has applied for increased power output from the electricity grid in this area. This is due to an under-dimensioned electricity grid as well as the lack of local dispatchable power. Once upon a time such power existed, before the Social Democrats decommissioned nuclear power, but it no longer does. By working preventatively with local energy planning, grid development plans and energy scenarios, future shortages will be identified earlier and can be handled before they put a spoke in the wheel of the business sector's continued development.

The government's second important initiative, Madam Speaker, is the state credit guarantees of 400 billion kronor that are to be allocated to new nuclear power. Three parties in the opposition wish to scrap these funds entirely, while the last one wants to allocate them to other types of power.

Why is this so important then? Well, because the biggest hole in the Swedish power system is the lack of dispatchable power in southern Sweden. This is only solved by adding new dispatchable power. More wind power can be useful in the power system but cannot address this specific problem and can never replace the dispatchable power. More nuclear power reduces the need for transmission capacity, increases this capacity, and makes it possible to implement more wind power in the system. The credit guarantees also become a first form of risk-sharing and reduce the greatest risk in nuclear power projects, namely that the Socialdemokraterna again submit to the Miljöpartiet's ultimatum and shut down fully functioning climate-smart nuclear power prematurely.

It has, as it should, Madam Speaker, been presented a number of alternatives to the government's budget. Naturally, these should also be highlighted, so that the Swedish people can gain an insight into the alternatives to the government's energy policy.

With a different election result, we could have expected a Green Party roulette. After many years, the Green Party has realized that intermittent power production cannot function as the base of a power system. But does the Green Party then choose to return to proven science and present a package for more base power? The answer, Madam Speaker, is no. Instead, they shall invest more in intermittent weather-dependent power. The enormous fluctuations that will arise shall be managed via energy storage.

The problem is that the Green Party must first establish a large state research program of 3 billion per year to research large-scale energy storage. They essentially want to put all of Sweden on pause while this is researched. We can also observe that Svenska kraftnät dismisses long-term large-scale energy storage as something totally unrealistic both in the medium term and in the long term. This gamble is to be covered by a tax hike against all working Swedes and a substantial increase in the national debt. The Green Party's energy policy is to bet all of Sweden's energy system on zero on the roulette table, furthermore with borrowed money.

The Left Party wants to fully adopt the German energy policy. Nuclear power is to be phased out, and wind power is to be expanded even further. They wish to go so far as to abolish the municipal veto. In a true Left Party spirit, they therefore want to override all those who live, live, and work in the countryside. The Left Party delivers a veritable tax bomb on both companies and workers. Will there even be any business sector left in Sweden that needs electricity with their budget? No, probably not, Madam Speaker.

Furthermore, to the Center Party, which wants to present itself as action-oriented and establish a crisis commission! To do this, they naturally take money from two very important areas. First, they take from the local planning for increased electricity use - one of the vital areas that has been neglected for several years. This is then followed by them taking money from the government's investment in simplified permit processes - a perhaps somewhat unexpected move from a party that likes to thump its chest regarding precisely simplified permit processes.

Madam Speaker! Finally, to the party that is to tie together this mixed bag! The Social Democrats' energy policy consists of them desiring very many and broad conversations. Such a conversation was conducted several months ago. The Social Democrats have succeeded in putting forward a single goal, 60 terawatt-hours by 2030. That an energy goal will be included in the energy bill has been known since the Tidö Agreement was presented over a year ago.

Dear Social Democrats! When will you leave the substitutes' bench and say what you wish to do within energy policy? When will you stop with the silent game?

Madam Speaker! We within the Tidösamarbetet will continue forward toward creating a functioning power system. You Social Democrats and obviously also others are welcome to participate, but honestly – do not think that we will sit and wait for your dithering and your pipe dreams of endless coffee parties.

In the end, there is only one clearly unifying thing within the opposition's energy policy. It is that they do not understand what a power system is. Nowhere do we find a holistic view of how the national energy infrastructure should actually look. No party in the opposition is aware that electricity is a perishable product that must be consumed at the same second it is produced. They only talk about energy on an annual basis, which is a secondary measure. No one manages to handle the significantly more important measure of power, which is what must be met every second across the entire country. It is for this reason that the opposition is unable to talk about dispatchable power sources and only focuses on weather-dependent power sources, Madam Speaker.

Let me conclude: With this budget, another step is taken away from the opposition's imaginary solutions and a step back towards the world's best power system. It is a power system where every family can afford the electricity bill and where every Swedish company, new as well as old, knows that they never need to doubt whether they can expand in Sweden or be forced to move.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to wish the committee and also Madam Speaker a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I also want to remind you that even though the gnome is red, the sky is blue.

In this speech, Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M) agreed.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Even here, it seems that attack is the best defense in the absence of one's own ideas. It is nice that Mats Green has read at least parts of the Center Party's budget, but it would have been good if he had read the whole thing. Then he would have seen that when it comes to local energy planning, there are other funds allocated, and when it comes to the crisis commission, it is precisely about shortening the permit processes.

If one wanted to shorten the processes, a good example of a measure would be to carry out the proposals that are on the government's desk and gathering dust in the form of the climate justice inquiry and the environmental assessment inquiry.

I would very much like to hear a little about the Moderates' energy policy. We know that the industry and SKGS have said that 70 terawatt-hours are needed by 2030. Svenska kraftnät presented their ten-year plan, where they were very clear that a lot needs to be built out here and now. They talk about the need to build out everything.

The big question is: How is the government going to make this work? We can talk about nuclear power as much as we want, but I believe we agree that it will not be ready by 2030. In the best-case scenarios, it will be somewhere around 2035.

What do the government and the Moderaterna intend to do in the meantime, until a potential nuclear power is in place? The industry's needs are significantly greater in the short term than that they can just wait for new nuclear power.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! Regarding the permit processes and the investigations that exist, these are investigations that we forced the previous government to conduct, because it did not want to do this at all. We have not proceeded with this because the investigation proposals are far too unambitious. We need more ambitious proposals, and there we would like to see the Center Party provide support – even if I may not become particularly hopeful when I hear Rickard Nordin here today.

When it comes to 70 terawatts by 2030, it is clear that we want as many terawatt-hours as possible, but it must also be realistic. This takes a long time. And why is that? Yes, because the Center Party together with the Social Democrats have decommissioned six of twelve fully functioning climate-smart reactors in Sweden, particularly in southern Sweden.

I have a question for Rickard Nordin. The Center Party has opposed all new planned production in southern Sweden, which means that Skåne and the industry there will never be able to have planned production. This means that it will be very difficult to conduct industrial activities in Skåne, because the Center Party says, together with the Social Democrats, no to new conceivable sites for, among other things, nuclear power.

When it comes to 70 terawatts by 2030, that is exactly why we have taken a holistic approach to energy policy. We will not get any nuclear power plants - at least not conventional ones - by 2030. But one will also not be able to produce more wind power than that which is already decided and permitted. These are long permit processes, which also need to be simplified.

But we are doing what you should have, could have, and would have done during previous parliamentary terms. We take a holistic approach to the permit processes and simplify them, but above all, we ensure that we get more predictable power in Sweden in general and in southern Sweden in particular, where you have phased out the predictable power. You shut down nuclear power, and you taxed away the combined heat and power.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Mats Green has a history of engaging in historical revision and making things up. It was, in fact, I personally who pushed forward several of the investigations in the discussions we had within the January cooperation. It was not the Moderaterna.

Industry wants the proposals from the Climate Justice Inquiry and the Environmental Assessment Inquiry implemented. I spoke with the Energy Companies as recently as today, and they wonder what the government is doing. There are important decisions and important proposals in the inquiries. Mats Green says they are all too unambitious. But start with them, then! I am not saying it is the only solution, but we have to start somewhere. Just sitting and waiting and letting the inquiries gather dust will not shorten any permit processes at all.

What is the government actually waiting for? There are proposals that can be implemented which shorten the permit processes. And now the Moderaterna are sitting there and saying that they shall not be implemented! For me, it is insane.

Mats Green says that we are against all predictable production in southern Sweden because we have not said yes to building new nuclear power anywhere in Sweden. In that case, Mats Green has a problem with his definition of predictability. For the first, "predictable" is not a type of power, but it is a characteristic. For the second, it is possible to achieve predictability in quite many ways, for example via combined heat and power. We have presented a number of proposals on how one could get more power out of existing combined heat and power production. We are talking about the equivalent of one to two nuclear power plants in both power and energy, but above all power – it is therefore not just energy – if one is interested in that.

When it comes to small-scale hydropower, the pause that the Tidö parties are implementing, which is good, does not seem to be leading anywhere. It is a huge problem. The Center Party put forward proposals during the last parliamentary term and pushed through a declaration together with the Moderates, where they now are doing nothing at all. We have storage, and we can work with flexibility. There are a number of things we can do to increase predictability and have a more stable power system.

So it is not just nuclear power. If nuclear power is the only solution, one has condemned southern Sweden to high electricity prices for the next 10-15 years before it would be in place. How do the Moderaterna intend to solve the challenges until 2030 or until we have new nuclear power in place? That is what I want to know.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! I must nevertheless welcome the Centre Party and Rickard Nordin to reality, because, after all, the Centre Party has contributed above all three things to Swedish energy policy over the last 50 years: a ban on thinking, annual exercises, and dogmatism. So, welcome to reality!

The Center Party opposed more nuclear power or nuclear power altogether in electricity area 4. They have none now. The Center Party, together with the Social Democrats, has introduced a lot of penalty taxes on combined heat and power. It is very good that you have turned around there now and are starting to embrace combined heat and power. That was not how it sounded during the previous parliamentary period, when you yourselves were involved in introducing a number of new taxes - specifically targeted at combined heat and power.

It is said that it was the Centerpartiet and Rickard Nordin who pushed through shorter permit processes under the previous government when you had an agreement with them. The previous government failed to budge and approve a single offshore wind farm. We have done more there in one year than the previous government managed in eight years. They did not carry out any permit simplifications or efficiencies at all during these eight years.

We are doing all of this now. Even when it comes to this, we have therefore accomplished more in this first year than the previous government managed to achieve during eight years. It will take time; one must be honest and say that. But it will also take time because the previous government has decommissioned six of twelve fully functioning climate-smart reactors in southern Sweden.

The Center Party has in some parts been a single-issue party during the last 50 years. It has been about getting all nuclear power out of the system. So, take your part in this as well! But also be constructive and engage in a constructive dialogue with us on how we rebuild the world's best power system! There we are still waiting for the Center Party.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Mats Green absolutely seems to use attack as the best defense with some loose-ended attacks on various things.

I still think we should focus a little bit. The Moderates hold the Prime Minister's post and are ultimately responsible for Sweden right now, and I think one needs to take this responsibility very seriously. I heard absolutely no answer to the question of how the government intends to deliver 70 terawatt-hours or more by 2030. And not only that – according to the industry's forecasts, an additional 70 terawatt-hours are needed already by 2035 if we are to manage the major industrial transition that we face.

I actually do not know whether I want or do not want those who are ready to make gigantic investments in Sweden – it is about 50,000 jobs in the future, according to the industry – to hear Mats Green's answer to the question. We have not received any answer yet, and we need an answer. That is the first thing I want an answer on.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! What Member Linus Lakso is actually saying is that he does not like that we talk too much about the Green Party's energy policy. I might not have either wanted that if I were a member of the Green Party here in the chamber, with the track record one has after eight years in government, which we now need to deal with. This is not entirely irrelevant.

I would like to ask a question about producing more energy by 2030. In one year, we have approved more offshore wind farms than you managed to do during eight years in government, Linus Lakso. You actually didn't manage to say yes to any offshore wind farm during that time, but you managed to put a stop to two new reactors and shut down four others. We could say a great deal about this, but that is exactly why we are where we are when it comes to the problems with new electricity supply in Sweden.

We have thus said yes to a number of offshore wind farms but also begun the long, laborious journey to take us back to the world's best power system. It is once again the predictable, stable power it is about: nuclear power, hydropower, which you want to tear out, and combined heat and power, which you want to tax away. That is the A and O.

When we talk about dispatchable power, this is not an entry in the culture war between wind power and nuclear power. It is not about ideology and politics but about technology, science, and laws of nature. We already have, with existing granted permits for new wind power, a 50 percent increase in wind power. But that is not enough, and we need more combined heat and power, more hydropower, and more nuclear power. This is what we are working to deliver, but it will take time due to your nuclear phase-out, among other things.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if I can work through all of this in two minutes, but I must begin.

Firstly, it does not correspond to reality that Sweden would have a dismantled energy system, on the contrary. According to the World Energy Council, Sweden has the world's best electricity system in an international ranking. I believe we still have to take reality into account in this.

After eight years with Miljöpartiet in government, Sweden has Europe's largest surplus of electricity. Last year we had a surplus of 33 terawatt-hours, which we could also export and thereby replace fossil energy in other parts of Europe.

When it comes to combined heat and power, the electricity certificate system, which we have stood behind, has contributed to large investments in combined heat and power. This is something we are positive about, and it was needed. It is therefore not at all true that we would be against this, nor that we would be against hydropower. On the contrary, we are positive about the power increases that are taking place. Not least Skellefteå Kraft is investing in power increases, but we see no policy promoting that development from this government.

When it comes to energy storage, it is about technology that already exists. Hydrogen is not a new technology; it is about scaling it up. Batteries are already involved and stabilize the electricity system. I do not know if this government has done anything concrete for frequency stability, as Mats Green pointed out. On the contrary, it is Svenska kraftnät that has established the market for this. It is a development that is already occurring, so it is not correct that this would not be underway.

I also want to question this with fully functioning nuclear power, when Vattenfall's chairman himself says, for example, that the base plate in Ringhals 2 was completely rusted through and that the safety requirements are not being met.

I think we can still try to stick to what is correct in the debate, even if we have different opinions on the matter.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! What Linus Lakso is actually saying is that he does not want to be tormented with too many facts. It is still the case that you laid down nuclear power, taxed away combined heat and power, and tore out hydropower, Linus Lakso. If one had wanted to go in to tear down the world's best functioning power system, one would have done so. You did this solely for the benefit of weather-dependent power sources.

It is true, as Linus Lakso says, that electricity production has increased by 10,000 megawatts compared to ten years ago. But it doesn't matter, because because of this we have sky-high electricity prices and a more unstable system - precisely because one spontaneously sets up weather-dependent power wherever one feels like it, without any holistic thinking regarding the power system. We were very close to getting electricity rationing in electricity area 4 exactly one year ago, thanks to Miljöpartiets rampage in the power system during the previous eight years.

You need, together with us, to take responsibility for developing a new fossil-free power system where nuclear power is included as a technical prerequisite. The problem is, however, that there is no example in the world of a functioning power system of the kind that Miljöpartiet wants, on a Swedish scale. Where would it exist in that case? Now the member stands here and nods, so I hope that the member in their contribution later can provide an example of such a power system - it does not exist in the world.

Again: We are simplifying for all fossil-free power sources. But it is clear that the dispatchable power, that is, nuclear power, combined heat and power, and hydropower, is the alpha and omega of the power system, for scientific reasons. It is precisely for that reason that we prioritize these. That is just how you get a functioning power system again.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker and Member Mats Green! I do not believe that the heavy industry in Norrbotten is impressed by all of Mats Green's blustering from the rostrum.

I react when Mats Green says that Vänsterpartiet wants a German electricity system. Today, it is actually only Vänsterpartiet that wants to move away from the German electricity system infecting Swedish consumers with high prices. We are today, unfortunately, the only party that would want to decouple that pricing that infects Swedish consumers so that they pay several times more for the Swedish-produced electricity. Some even want to build more cables so that we are infected even further by the prices prevailing on the continent, due to a bad policy for the electricity system - I can agree with that.

I want to ask a question to Mats Green. Do the Moderaterna believe that there is a best-before date for Swedish nuclear power plants? Or is it politics that decides whether a nuclear power plant is too old or if it can continue to run? Do we have a system that Mats Green trusts, where the profession and science, as the member himself highlights, says that the best-before date has passed? Do the Moderaterna believe in such a system, or do you believe that it is politics that sets the framework for when we shut down nuclear power plants?

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Birger Lahti! I will start with the last question. No, it is the politics that has forced the closure of nuclear power by branding it as a fire hazard and introducing a multitude of other stop laws. This is a fact.

We need to allow our nuclear power plants to operate throughout their entire lifespan, but above all, we must create the conditions for more. Southern Sweden in general and electricity area 4, that is, the southernmost Sweden, in particular, will never get away from this. I could also pose a question to Birger Lahti: Why should southern Sweden not have any dispatchable electricity at all?

Birger Lahti says that Vänsterpartiet does not want a German power system. That is exactly what they want. For what is it that characterizes a German power system more than that it is climate-hostile, environmentally hostile, unreliable, and expensive? Well, it is that they have introduced a thought ban and all other prohibitions against new nuclear power. They therefore only have coal mines and weather-dependent power, which has also meant that Germany's energy-intensive industry is looking at whether it is forced to leave Germany.

It is thus the total ban on nuclear power, which Vänsterpartiet wants, and the total dependence on weather-dependent types of power, which Vänsterpartiet also wants, that is what I refer to when I say that Vänsterpartiet wants a German power system.

No one is standing guard for a functioning industry in Sweden - I know the member does, but the problem is that his party no longer does - can actually vote for the proposal you have.

Again: We do not need a German power system, we shall return to the world's best power system, that is to say, the previous Swedish one.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Green, for the answer and the assertions!

The risk with the policy that the government is now pursuing is exactly the same risk that the member now says Germany faces, that is, that companies leave the country. If we do not get more production in place by 2030, we risk, just as Mats Green describes in the case of Germany, falling into the danger zone of losing jobs. This is precisely what happens if the industrial investments do not materialize.

We previously had a debate here where it was said that politics should not dictate which technology we should use. But that is exactly what is happening today. We have industrial initiatives where they point out what they want to achieve and with which technology. Now we have a government that, together with the Sweden Democrats, is braking what is about to happen.

People want cheap electricity production, even though it is volatile, where hydrogen is produced where there is overproduction. It will contribute to a transition in the industry. But this government is doing nothing to facilitate the transition that is to take place.

I am honestly worried, Madam Speaker. I thought that this government, even though I would not agree with everything that happens, would pave the way so that companies would feel secure. But those are not the signals I am now receiving from northern Sweden. Instead, there is a worry about now losing the chance and the jobs that the green transition leads to. It is regrettable.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! Let us then talk about the industry in northern Sweden! They need electricity all the time - stable, climate-smart and cheap. It cannot only be when the wind blows or the sun shines, it must be year-round, around the clock and every second. Only the predictable electricity production can deliver that. It is about nuclear power, hydropower and combined heat and power.

What is the Left Party investing in then when it comes to northern Sweden? Well, in improving the transmission capacity from northern Sweden to southern Sweden. That is perhaps not quite what the industries in the north desire. They need more electricity production. Then you cannot take electricity from northern Sweden and transfer it to southern Sweden. Norrland itself needs all the electricity that is produced there. We in southern Sweden have to solve our own problems. This means that we need more predictable nuclear power here.

Vänsterpartiet wants to make it easier to transport electricity from northern Sweden to southern Sweden. We realize that industrial initiatives in Norrland require enormous amounts of electricity. Even if Hybrit or H2 Green Steel do not come to fruition, the electricity will be needed by other industrial initiatives in Norrland. The solution to that cannot be to transport more electricity from northern Sweden to southern Sweden.

The solution is reliable, stable, predictable and climate-smart power, that is to say nuclear power, hydropower and combined heat and power - not only wind power and solar power and totally unrealistic and unreliable technical solutions that do not exist and which are about large-scale and long-term energy storage. Listen to what Svenska kraftnät has to say about this. It will never be feasible for Sweden, not in the medium term and neither in the long term.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! It is no secret what we are doing now this evening. We are debating the Committee on Economic Affairs' report NU3 U tgiftsområde 21 Energy.

The Government considers that Sweden's competitiveness and welfare are built on access to fossil-free energy at competitive prices. Furthermore, the Government states that a high security of supply of fossil-free electricity is important for phasing out fossil fuels and reducing import dependence during difficult security policy times. One of the Government's primary priorities is therefore to create conditions for new predictable and fossil-free electricity production, primarily nuclear power.

It is nothing new, and sure, it might sound like a good plan, right? But what the government, with the help of the Sweden Democrats, is doing today is undermining Sweden's competitiveness and electricity for Swedish companies and private individuals at competitive prices. It is precisely this that is happening now.

The government parties and the Sweden Democrats often speak of technology neutrality, yet they point out credit guarantees only for nuclear power. When the Left Party proposes large state investments in grid and production, I choose not to attack the credit guarantees that the government proposes, even though I actually should. But these should, of course, be reworked to also apply to other types of power.

The Swedish people expect that energy policy should gain better long-term perspective and thereby become what the government also writes: a competitive edge for our welfare and the path to fossil-free status and the transformation of society. But then we cannot have energy policy as an election issue in every election. In the current situation, it opposes electrification and investments.

Vänsterpartiet wants the green transition of heavy industry to succeed. Therefore, it is important that the expansion of electricity production by 2030 is realized. It is not possible to oppose the types of power sources that could be in place by 2030 and the needs that the investors in those are flagging.

A robust and resilient society requires that the public has control over society-critical activities. Despite the fact that there is great potential for offshore wind power in Sweden, construction has not yet gained momentum. Sweden lags far behind other countries with similar conditions. I therefore want to end the market chaos and establish a new model which, in short, means that the Energy Agency shall be tasked with identifying suitable areas for expansion and arranging auctions. The companies that request the lowest subsidy would then be awarded the contracts.

This can also be combined with a halt to the expansion of power cables to Europe. In order to gain control over prices, control over the Swedish electricity market must be taken back. Otherwise, public investments in Swedish electricity production risk practically becoming subsidies for the neighboring countries' deficient efforts. Vänsterpartiet has already previously proposed Swedish prices for electricity, where the Swedish electricity prices are decoupled from the high export prices.

With the model I advocate for, household electricity prices will be significantly lower, and the climate transition will be accelerated. At the same time, the export of electricity can continue as it does today. I also advocated that a state-owned company should be established so that the state can ensure an ownership share in future offshore wind projects.

Today, several municipalities are stopping wind power projects with the municipal veto, as there are no incentives for the municipalities to say yes. Clearly, more of the value created out in our municipalities must become an added value for the municipal citizens. I also advocate for legislation on a production-based compensation paid by the electricity producer to the local communities where wind power is built, preferably by reversing the property tax. But the government removed the tool in the incentive study that would have solved the problem and provided compensation to the municipalities. One could at least have had a proposal on how it would work.

The market is a good servant and works well in many areas. But when the market becomes master and begins to have the opposite effect on society-critical functions such as the electricity supply, yes, then it is up to us politicians to let go of prestige, unite, and look at what is to the benefit of Sweden's competitiveness and Swedish citizens.

The climate requires us to do our utmost to both maintain jobs in the country and contribute to the electrification to phase out the fossil. Do you know how many small businesses and households are affected by the policy that is now being pursued in the eagerness to let EU market pricing prevail over the socially important function that the electricity supply actually should be?

Madam Speaker! I know that this debate concerns appropriations for an expenditure area, but there are many citizens who are affected by the fact that we have released socially important infrastructure and functions to the market and a dysfunctional pricing model. If there are any listeners out there, I want to ask you: Can you think of anything else that you cannot opt out of in everyday life that has gone up by over 100 percent in two years?

Of course, many will manage to fix their electricity bills, but an enormous number are hit very hard. Add to that everything else that has eroded our private finances – it concerns wages, food prices, and fuel costs. Yes, inflation hits many hard. But when it comes to electricity production, the cost has not risen significantly in terms of what we produce in Sweden, yet most parties accept the situation and do nothing to influence the unsustainable development of the pricing for Swedish electricity to Swedish consumers. I would understand this if all doors to a solution were locked and unreachable, but one has not even tried to find solutions.

History will not be merciful if this lethargy from the government and the Sverigedemokraterna leads to investments that could make us, in a small country like Sweden, pioneers in the green transition pass us by and thousands of jobs are lost. History will then not be merciful.

Madam Speaker! Today, some companies and the Swedish state are profiting enormously from a dysfunctional pricing model for Swedish electricity.

Vänsterpartiet chooses to abstain from participating in this decision.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! As a Christian Democrat, I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal in the Committee on Industry's report NU3. It concerns expenditure area 21 Energy.

Without enough electricity, there will be no climate transition. Nor will there be a welfare society worth the name. We have now begun a historic journey where our country is to undergo electrification 2.0. We are paving the way for this to become a reality.

It can be difficult for us who live today to understand what a dramatic transition the world experienced when kerosene lamps were replaced by electric light and completely new opportunities for development, growth, and welfare were created. It is about as difficult to grasp as it is for today's young people when they hear the older generation tell them about telephones that were fixed to the wall or that one had to wait half a year to see a film that had just been released in the USA.

Madam Speaker! We did it before, and we can do it again. Sweden shall become fossil-free and show that one can be a modern welfare state with sustainable growth. I believe that our country's best days lie ahead of us. We have great opportunities to continue to develop, to continue to be a country at the forefront of technology and show that problems can be solved.

We Christian Democrats were early in talking about the need to scale up our electricity production to meet the challenges we face. I was a newly elected member in this chamber in 2018. I also sat in the Committee on Industry at that time. And I began to talk about that Sweden should aim to produce - hold on now - 200 terawatt-hours of electricity. Many looked at me then as if I had lost my mind completely. No one believed that one was talking about 200 at all, but rather much lower figures.

But then things started happening, step by step. It has almost been a numbers bingo over the last two or three years regarding how much electricity we will need within a generation. To be honest, no one really knows exactly how many terawatt-hours will be needed in a specific year in the future, but a wise direction is that we should be able to hit 300 terawatt in about 20 years.

I am glad that earlier this year we were able to decide to adjust the goal - that all energy shall be fossil-free - and that we no longer lock ourselves into the requirement that it must be renewable. I am also glad that just a couple of weeks ago in this chamber we were able to decide on a modernized nuclear power act. The cap on the number of reactors was removed, and nuclear power is released from its house arrest.

I am pleased that we have a government with Energy Minister Ebba Busch at the helm who, together with other countries during the UN climate summit COP 28 in Dubai, is forming an alliance for a significantly expanded nuclear power for the sake of the climate. It is about a tripling.

All fossil-free types of energy have a place to fill in the energy mix. It is just as foolish to pit a bicycle and a car against each other and make them enemies as it is to pit wind power and nuclear power against each other. Bicycles are needed and are useful, cars likewise. The same is true with types of energy. They complement each other and contribute different utilities and values. They have different characteristics and take us different distances in different times.

But we must remember to safeguard, care for, and develop the electricity system itself. For us Christian Democrats, it is a matter of hygiene to re-establish the electricity system's stability, security of supply, and affordability.

Madam Speaker! I look forward to the upcoming energy policy direction proposal that has been announced by the government. Discussions are now taking place regarding that the policy should set the goals. The authorities' governance will be important, and the output of the work will be decisive for Sweden. The will and the courage are there. I am extremely happy that we are now reorienting the energy policy and creating robustness in the electricity system.

With this, Madam Speaker, I wish the committee and the Speaker's Presidium a Merry Christmas. This is, in fact, my last debate for the year.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Camilla Brodin began her speech with: Without access to electricity, there will be no climate transition. That is something I am prepared to sign off on. I might have said: Without access to electricity before 2030, there will be no climate transition. Industry is talking about 70 terawatt-hours. To that, we can add transport and other things.

How is the government going to solve this? The only thing Camilla Brodin spoke about was about 20 years from now, so somewhere around 2045. There we surely also need planning goals and other things. It is not impossible that it is something more or something less than 300 terawatt-hours; that remains to be seen. But what we know is that the forecasts in the short term are much clearer, and there we have heard nothing from the government. The only thing we have seen in the short term is such that actually worsens for different types of renewable power sources.

My question is very simple: How is the government going to meet the industry's needs for new electricity production by 2030?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Nordin, for the question! You have posed this question to several members here today.

If I remember correctly, energy efficiency is something that the Center Party also sees. I believe that something can be done through energy efficiency and by strengthening the role of combined heat and power. The previous government octupled the tax for combined heat and power. That was perhaps not the smartest thing they did. Here, there is the possibility for one and a half reactors, if one translates it a bit crudely. It is about being able to expand it and get more production in that way.

I believe we must take the lowest-hanging fruits, because we know that offshore wind power will not take such a short time either. All the wind power that exists in Sweden today will also need to be replaced. Many of the turbines that were erected 15 years ago when the wind power carpet was rolled out will need to be replaced.

This government paused the environmental review of hydropower, and I know that Member Nordin has worked hard together with the government parties during the previous term to safeguard the role of hydropower so that we do not risk a displacement to a much greater extent than what we see.

We will be able to present proposal after proposal, and I look forward to that. But it is no easy challenge to have to clean up after the previous government.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Camilla Brodin! I appreciate that one does not only look backward but also forward, for that is what is relevant.

I also think it is great that efficiency is being highlighted. Unfortunately, we do not see many proposals from the government regarding this. There are some regarding the small houses, and that is good, even though we would have liked to see an even more expanded green deduction, for example.

In district heating, some taxes are being removed. Above all, it concerned the fossil parts that previous governments wanted to phase out. There are good things that you have done there, but it provides no new district heating, and we can already see now how tough it is.

Replacing wind power is very good, but there are no proposals from the government on how to facilitate it. It would have been very good if you had proactively developed such a regulatory framework, but we have not seen anything.

The environmental assessment of hydropower is paused. That has also been good, but there are no concrete proposals there either. It does not help against displacement if one pauses for a year; then one has only postponed the problem.

When it comes to land-based wind power, Camilla Brodin's own party is one of the biggest opponents locally, and we have also not seen any local incentives. An investigation is gathering dust on the government's desk along with very many applications for offshore wind power that could be in place before 2030, for example Kriegers flak from Vattenfall which has been granted permission. But the conditions for them were worsened, and they themselves say it could be ready by 2029.

The big question remains, then. People talk very well about efficiency, combined heat and power, wind power and hydropower. But no proposals have been put forward, and there is an urgency. If we are to manage this by 2030, the proposals must come now so that the investments can be made, because it also takes time to build.

What can we expect from the government? When will some proposals regarding efficiency, combined heat and power, wind power, and hydropower arrive? We can also mention the sun, flexibility, and storage. The only thing that has been done so far is to worsen things in many ways.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the enumeration of what is considered that the government has not done! A year has passed, and I truly see what the government has achieved during this year when it comes to starting to clean up an electricity system that truly deserves to be properly restored.

The megawatts that we must have for the industry to be able to manage the transition are super important. Then one must take a holistic approach and look at the laws of physics, set aside the feelings that politicians really have in energy issues, and look at what the electricity system needs so that we can redirect the entire energy policy that has been so dismantled but that we have been very proud of.

Ten years ago, we did not spend much time on the energy issue at all here in the chamber, because it has existed there as a hygiene factor. Electricity has been available at competitive prices. That is also why industrial activities have been able to be established and be very green throughout that entire transition.

It is something we should be proud of, but the path that the previous government took is not the right one. Therefore, we have now redirected the entire energy policy, which I am extremely proud of. I promise that this government will show decisiveness and deliver based on all the different investigations that are currently in place.

I also promise that I will stand here in the chamber and be proud and happy to be able to look the industry straight in the eye, so that they can continue to be competitive for Sweden.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Energy is more than just electricity, even if it may sound in this debate as if it is only about electricity. The previous winter saw very sharp price increases on both electricity and fuels for households and companies, which were hit hard economically. The main reason for that is, however, not what it sounds like here in the chamber, i.e., Swedish energy policy, but high fossil gas prices on the continent that have spilled over into Sweden, and that is due to Russia's energy warfare in Europe.

High crude oil prices together with a shaky krona exchange rate have also affected fuel prices. In fact, with exactly the same proportion of renewable energy in the diesel, the price has varied between 28 and 20 kronor per liter. When the government has now decided to increase fossil fuels by 4 million liters per day in order to succeed in lowering the price, one must therefore begin by understanding how the fuel market works.

Now, powerful measures are obviously needed in both the short and long term so that these high prices are not repeated. Not least, we need to ensure that fossil fuels from rogue states such as Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar cannot cause such large consequences for Sweden.

The governing parties and the Center Party urged the previous government before the election to stop the deliveries of Russian energy to Sweden. Now, the priorities are completely different. I do not know if it is the pro-Russians in the Sweden Democrats who have caused the government to abandon the ambitions to stop the Russian gas, because the announcement that we pushed through at that time is one that they are now prepared to scrap.

Instead, one should focus on increasing the production of Swedish fuels. When the government wants to increase the import of fossil fuels, we want to produce cheaply and renewably here. All cars should be able to become environmentally friendly cars, and everyone who drives a car should be able to be environmental heroes. We know that new biofuels from waste products that would otherwise have lain and rotted in the forest could cost between 11 and 15 kronor per liter. It stands in completed investigations. According to the Swedish Energy Agency, it could also create tens of thousands of jobs. Talk about a win! Instead of importing the fossil fuels, we can do it here and at the same time strengthen our security situation, for example through contracts for difference, or reverse auctions, which we in C have proposed.

When we talk about fuels, it is impossible to avoid biogas. In December last year, an EU judgment arrived which in one stroke made it 5 kronor more expensive at the pump to refuel with biogas. With a government that talked its way through the entire election campaign about high pump prices, one would have thought that they would do something. Instead, they have sent letters to the commission and are hoping for the best.

Is the Russian gas more important to defend than the Swedish biogas? There is something that is not right here. Furthermore, the rug is being pulled out from under the support that the truck sector running on biogas has received. Now they are not even welcome, despite being very climate-wise.

The energy debate is often about electricity production. It is a corporate focus and a production focus and rarely concerns the individual household's situation or role. We in Centerpartiet want to give more households more freedom to choose more for themselves and also an opportunity to be part of the transition. That is why we pushed through the proposal for a green deduction for those who install solar cells or install a charging station or battery storage.

Now it is time to expand this and move forward. Those who do not have their own roof but want to join with neighbors and produce their own energy should be allowed to do so. Energy communities are exceptions in Sweden today, while in many other places in Europe we see how they are growing. We have a tradition in Sweden of joining together and doing things together. We have had road associations, fishing associations and fiber associations - now it is time for the energy associations.

In our budget, we have proposed a support for those who are energy-efficient and want to replace their direct electricity, and we want to provide those who have very small margins with state loans so they can make that investment and lower their costs. Those with small means are, in fact, stuck in a poverty trap today. We know that the electric car is cheaper to operate, but it is more expensive to purchase. In that case, one must be able to make that investment.

We see the same thing regarding heating at home. It is cheaper to have geothermal heating than direct electricity, but one must be able to manage the investment. That is why it is so important with electric car bonuses, green deductions, and state loans for energy efficiency. It is also something that the whole society benefits from.

Greater freedom and protection against natural monopolies are also needed. Electricity grid companies and district heating companies can raise prices quite significantly, even to the extent that they have been expelled from the industry organizations that exist for the sake of transparency. That is problematic. Combined heat and power and district heating are important for the Swedish energy system. There, politics, the business sector, and companies need to take greater responsibility so that we can put an end to court proceedings and appeals. There must be order and clarity. A peace treaty is needed between electricity grid companies and consumers. Here, the large companies need to take a special responsibility, not least because we know how important it is.

It is unacceptable that there are practically finished factories in Småland but that they cannot get electricity because the regional grid owners have lead times that are too long.

The green transition is an opportunity for Sweden. Now the government parties have left the chamber because they are not interested, and that says quite a lot about the green varnish that this seems to be. It doesn't seem to matter that much, and it is not so important to lead the way. Nothing could be more wrong.

It is clear that it is the Center Party that is driving the bourgeois agenda in Swedish politics right now. It is the business sector that is pushing for the transition. When Moderates in the speaker's chair and in exchanges of remarks say that the industry wants stable and reliable electricity, they have not listened. It is known that a large proportion of the upcoming usage concerns hydrogen, and hydrogen can be stored.

The pilot project in connection with the Hybrit project shows that it can be up to 40 percent cheaper to use electricity when it is very windy and there is a good supply of electricity. Then, less electricity is used thereafter. It is no coincidence that Holmen, SCA, Volvo, Northvolt, LKAB, SSAB and many other industrial companies say that it is very much possible that they want nuclear power in the future, but first they want wind power. Still, the government stands and only talks about nuclear power. They are actively making it harder for wind power, even though we know it is needed, even though it, together with flexibility, storage, solar energy, increased capacity in combined heat and power, increased capacity in nuclear power and better hydropower, can solve problems in the short term. Instead, they choose to ignore it. This is harmful for Sweden, harmful for the business sector and harmful for the climate transition.

When people talk about keeping climate policy at a European minimum level, they have not understood that we face a crossroads during this mandate period. Either Sweden goes ahead, and then we can sell solutions to the rest of the world when they catch up, or we follow behind, and then we have to buy from them. But in that case, our companies will have moved to other countries. They are not Sweden-sentimental; they want to be where the best conditions exist.

Instead, the government first wants to risk credit guarantees of 40,000 kronor per Swede, and then they want to add further subsidies on top of that for something that, at best, will be in place in 2035. If it is that good, and something that the business sector wants, it is probably reasonable to pay. Despite that, it does not seem like they trust their own policy but must subsidize it into existence. If anything, it is dogmatism and one-sidedness.

Unfortunately, it is not only applications for wind power that are gathering dust on the government's desks. Investigations that shorten the permit processes have not been moved forward. The pause for the environmental assessment of hydropower has not led to a single communicated proposal. The Bioeconomy Investigation's report on fuel production has not even been referred. Local incentives for electricity production have not been moved forward. The list can be long. The only thing that seems to be prioritized is nuclear power. It is very possible that it can be relevant from 2035 onwards, but the needs that the industry has by 2030 are not solved with nuclear power.

It is time to get to work. Start by implementing the proposals to compensate those affected by new electricity production and the power grid. Let the property tax be paid back to the municipalities. Quite a few have agreed on this. There was a debate in Agenda recently where all parties thought it was a good proposal. But implement it! It is not enough to stand on TV and say that it is a good proposal. What matters is what is placed on the Riksdag's table. The goal must be that new electricity production in the municipality becomes just as attractive as battery factories. They are connected. Without the electricity, no battery factories and no other industrial initiatives.

Solve the compensation issues for the electricity grids. Use new technology so that the defense does not have to say no. Saab has no problems seeing through a wind farm with its radar. Why is it then a problem for the government and the Armed Forces? Let Svenska kraftnät expand significantly and land-efficiently. There are incredible amounts of money in Riksgäldens account, to no use right now.

The government needs to show decisiveness. Speed up the clearing of the state bureaucracy. This can be done with simple measures. It is clear that new investigations are needed, but start by implementing what is ready. It is simply a matter of us in politics having the will. We must prioritize the transition, the expansion, the climate, and competitive electricity prices.

Centerpartiet is prepared to prioritize this. The question is whether others are willing to prioritize this together. By lowering the political risk, the investments can indeed be made cheaper and faster. It also lowers the cost for households.

It is time that we solve the problems. Households, the business community, and the climate expect it. The Centre Party extends its hand to the other parties. The question is whether one is willing to take the extended hand and come to the negotiating table. I am convinced that we can solve the problems together for the households, for the climate, for the companies, and for the best of Sweden.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! The member raised the prices of last winter in his speech and pointed to Russia's invasion of Ukraine as a contributing cause to this. That is, of course, true. But there were several factors that contributed to the electricity prices we saw last winter, and we agree that we do not want to end up there again.

One of the major contributing causes of the skyrocketing electricity prices, especially in the southern parts of the country, is the electricity price zones that exist in southern Sweden. In Skåne, the price level is set based on the prices on the continent.

The Centre Party rarely speaks about this. Have I understood the matter correctly when I understand it as that the Centre Party thinks it is the EU that should control the prices by setting the electricity price areas in Europe and thereby also in Sweden? It would be interesting to hear where the Centre Party thinks the lines for the electricity price areas in Sweden should be drawn.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I shall give a eulogy to Louise Eklund, who is the one from the government parties who has not left the chamber but has actually listened – which I think is nice.

It is correct that Russia is the main cause of the high prices. Following that comes the fact that French nuclear power is not delivering but is running at half speed, and even the Swedish power also ran at half speed at times during last winter. It is the large effects that caused the prices to spiral, not least in southern Sweden. This has emerged in various investigations, and even the industry has said so.

What would make the biggest difference is for Germany to do the same as Sweden and introduce electricity price zones. We should push for this more clearly from the Swedish side, not least from the Swedish government. Germany has a similar situation to Sweden with much production in the north and much consumption in the south. They have not divided the country into electricity price zones, which is a technical limitation. But it is not politics that should dictate where the boundaries should be, but instead they should be governed by physical laws in the transmission. But unlike the physical laws saying exactly which power types should be used, this is decided at the authority level.

What would be good is if the Swedish government did as the Danish did towards Sweden and actually sues Germany to introduce German electricity price zones. It would lower the price radically in southern Sweden.

Is this government prepared to take the fight against Germany and ensure that completely different conditions are also achieved in southern Sweden by having electricity prices lowered as a result of Germany being forced to introduce electricity price zones?

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! I note that the member does not answer my question on how the Center Party views the Swedish electricity price zone division. I must then conclude that one is satisfied with the division that exists in Sweden with four electricity price zones where electricity price zone 4, that is, southern Sweden, periodically has skyrocketing electricity prices, largely because it is connected to the continent's price formation.

It was precisely that electricity price zone division that caused Scanian farmers and food producers to almost go under last winter, which was actually on track to sink the entire Swedish food production. Therefore, I find it interesting that the Center Party no longer seems to value – or think it is important to defend – the possibilities for Scanian farmers and food producers to conduct their operations and have the same reasonable conditions for their electricity bills as food producers in other parts of the country.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I believe Louise Eklund needs to listen a bit better, because I did indeed answer the question. It is not politics that divides Sweden and other countries into electricity price areas; rather, this is done at the agency level based on the bottlenecks that exist in the electricity grid.

It is not the electricity price areas that have caused one to have high electricity prices. It is due, among other things, to that southern Sweden has far too little electricity production. The Center Party has submitted a number of proposals to increase it. We know that there are at least some moderate municipal councilors, such as Louise Eklund and others cooperate with, who say no to virtually all new electricity production.

We also know that with just two offshore wind farms, the price would have been lowered radically in electricity area 4. Still, one is not prepared to approve them. There are a number of proposals on the government's table. I have not mentioned the many onshore wind farms that would also have lowered the electricity price. These are being flatly refused in municipality after municipality in southern Sweden. This is also to say yes to high electricity prices.

It is clear that there are things to be done. We need to work much more with combined heat and power, small-scale hydropower and other things that this government does not seem to prioritize.

One could have sued the German state, as the Danish state sued the Swedish, to force it to introduce German electricity price zones. It would have lowered the price in southern Sweden even if no new power had been built. Louise Eklund did not, however, answer whether the government is prepared to do so. I think it is a bit cowardly. This is something that one actually should address, especially with such a high tone about that something should be done for southern Sweden.

I see nothing that this government has decided on that would lower the price in southern Sweden. I think that is problematic. Radically changed conditions were needed with local incentives for those who build new electricity production, regardless of power source, and decisions on the solar parks that could increase production in Skåne by 50 percent. Now this is just lying on the county administrative board's desk and gathering dust.

The government is not showing its full hand. In area after area, no decisions are being made. The exception is nuclear power, and it does not solve the problem – at least not for the next 15 years.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! I am so incredibly happy to stand in the speaker's chair today. Finally, we have secured a climate agreement. The world's leaders have today agreed on which direction global climate policy shall take. For the first time ever, a final agreement from the UN climate negotiations has established that the world shall, in an orderly and just way, carry out a transition from fossil fuels.

What we see now is the beginning of the end for the fossil era. It is historic that all participants have been able to reach an agreement and stand behind common goals. It is historic that countries such as China and Saudi Arabia have been able to stand behind the same goals as the EU and the USA. It is also actually historic that Sweden has played such an active role in getting this agreement in place. Thank you, Climate Minister Romina Pourmokhtari, for having been part of negotiating this absolutely crucial document!

For the rest of the world and not least the business community, the signal is now very clear: Fossil fuels will not be commercially viable much longer. This will have great significance also for Sweden, not least in the energy sector.

Thanks to the completely decisive decisions we have made in the energy area over the past year, we have equipped ourselves to tackle this historical shift. During the autumn, we took decisions on new nuclear power. The ban on new nuclear reactors has been removed, and it has become permitted to establish nuclear power in new locations. The Government has also presented a roadmap for nuclear power aimed at an extensive expansion of fossil-free nuclear power.

Moving from fossil to fossil-free energy sources, I believe, is the single most important thing we in Sweden can do to live up to our commitments in the global climate work. It cannot be avoided that nuclear power is crucial for this and will be even tomorrow. It is not possible to quickly transition energy production while maintaining delivery and operational security goals in any other way.

Today's debate has largely been a continuation of the fossil-free ambition that the government is pushing for. I note once again the Social Democrats' ambivalent stance towards nuclear power. I continue, even after today's debate, to ask myself what the party actually wants with its energy policy. One cannot hold two positions at the same time – either one believes that nuclear power is needed to reach the fossil-free society, or one does not.

It is remarkable that some parties can stand behind the global goals and that we are moving in a fossil-free direction while they in this chamber vote in a different way. I think it is extra remarkable against the background that the electricity demand in Sweden will increase significantly now that we are moving towards electrification. Industry and the transport sector are leading the way, but the entire society is now undergoing a transition. We must prepare ourselves to meet an electricity demand of perhaps 300 terawatt-hours in 2045. Those in this chamber who do not stand behind the proposals for new nuclear power when the time comes to press the button and vote have a very difficult time explaining how we in Sweden are to manage to reach this goal.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to say that the need for more fossil-free and predictable energy production becomes extra clear if one looks at the energy issue from a southern Swedish perspective. As is stated in the communication we are debating, the decommissioning of nuclear power has had major consequences for just southern Sweden, not least in the form of exposure to high electricity prices. It has become very expensive for all households but also for the climate, as much of the energy that southern Sweden has been forced to import has been fossil.

It is untimely to import coal to secure the electricity supply in Sweden. If we are to avoid doing so in the future, we need investments in fossil-free energy production throughout the country.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I fully agree that we must move towards a fossil-free future and in a fossil-free direction. In Sweden, however, the government is doing exactly the opposite and is, completely deliberately, increasing fossil emissions. How does one justify that?

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! This government has, over the past year, not least through the decision taken on December 15 last year and the decisions in the energy area that we have debated in this chamber, chosen to make changes and move from renewable to fossil-free. We have had a roadmap in place. We have also made decisions to be able to have more nuclear power, both in more places and with more reactors.

All this aims to free Sweden from fossil sources and towards a fossil-independent society at a faster pace and in a long-term sustainable way. I think that this government has taken several important and large steps in that direction.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! The atmosphere and the climate do not care much about what Louise Eklund and this government think. The atmosphere and the climate care about what one actually does.

It is true that the government has made a number of decisions, but these decisions have not reduced emissions by a single kilogram of carbon dioxide. On the other hand, a number of major decisions have been made to increase the use of fossil fuels. On the diesel side alone, we are talking about 4 million liters a day. We are talking about 10 million tons until 2030. It is the accumulated emissions that matter for the climate, not what one says they will do at some point in the future.

I still have not received any answer. I think it is nice that the government says that things are being done, but nothing has been done to reduce emissions. According to the government's own calculations in the budget that we are debating, emissions have instead increased. They will increase in the coming years, and we know who will have to pay for it. It is not just future generations, but it is this generation and the coming governments - perhaps even this government. Above all, it is agriculture and forestry.

Romina Pourmokhtari, who is the climate minister, said in Dubai that we must phase out fossil fuels. The government is increasing the use of fossil fuels. How can Louise Eklund and the Liberal Party defend that?

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! Now, it was not only the Swedish Minister for Climate who said this during the climate meeting, but all the world's leaders took the decision to phase out fossil sources and move towards a fossil-free society. It is therefore many more than me and the Minister for Climate who think it is important to move towards a fossil-free society. The enumeration I made of the decisions the government has initiated also points in the direction that by 2045 we shall transition to an increased electricity demand and a fossil-free society.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! To be able to deliver energy that meets society's needs, a few basic things are required. The energy we produce needs to be cheap and environmentally friendly, and it must arrive on time for us to manage the climate transition. The government is failing on all points. Emissions are increasing, and there is no clue at all as to how to deliver the energy that both industry and the climate transition need by 2030. We face a climate crisis that threatens our society, and yet the awareness that action and determination are needed is absent from the government.

What Sweden and the world need is an energy policy built on facts and global analysis. Then one would see that we need to invest in a substantial expansion of renewable energy, not least wind power and solar cells, of course in combination with large-scale energy storage, more power grids, and a smart and flexible energy system. Heavyweight actors such as the International Energy Agency, the UN's climate panel IPCC, and Chalmers all point out that it is wind power and solar power that have the potential to deliver large amounts of fossil-free electricity fast enough to meet the climate threat we face.

What we need to do is to handle this crisis in exactly the same way as we have handled the pandemic and the financial crisis. The state needs to take a clear leadership, and we need an investment budget for the climate. Therefore, Miljöpartiet has allocated 100 billion per year for the next ten years to manage the transition sufficiently quickly. We need to act now, not later when it is too late.

Furthermore, we have a unique opportunity to maintain a leading position in the green transition, which creates both development and jobs throughout Sweden - up to 50,000 jobs, according to the industry. We must seize that potential, but the government is in the process of bungling it away.

Miljöpartiet wants to invest heavily in renewable, cheap energy. Wind power is today the cheapest energy source being built on a large scale without subsidies. Already in 2024, wind power is expected to be Sweden's second largest technology for electricity production, and companies are queuing to build in the best wind locations. This development should be promoted, not least through compensation to neighbors and municipalities. It is a proposal that should be realized as soon as possible, and there are already investigated proposals to implement.

Solar energy also has great potential in Sweden. With solar cells on residential roofs, apartment buildings, and industrial premises, everyone can produce their own energy. The tax on self-produced electricity should be abolished completely, even over 500 kilowatts. With larger solar parks, large volumes of electricity can be produced that will benefit everyone. Up to 30 terawatt-hours by 2030 is the industry's assessment.

With an investment in large-scale solar heat, we can also replace some bioenergy and waste incineration for the production of heat for the district heating network. To promote this, we want to see an investment support. It enables the use of biofuels where they are needed most, namely to replace fossil fuels in the transport sector. Solar heat should also be included in the green technology deduction.

Madam Speaker! Energy efficiency is the fastest, cheapest, and most environmentally friendly way to reduce energy costs. To enable a rapid transition, Miljöpartiet wants the state to take a more active role in supporting households and companies. We propose that the state, for a period, takes 60 percent of the cost for all measures that increase the efficiency of energy use. This would lower the electricity price. Assessments show, in fact, that if one reduces electricity consumption by 1 percent, the electricity price drops by 5 percent. This means that with an energy efficiency of 10 percent, the electricity price would drop by 50 percent. This also enables a faster transition as there will be more space in the power grid and so on.

The future energy system will have a higher proportion of variable electricity production, which is natural when electricity largely comes from wind power and solar energy in both Sweden and our neighboring countries. Therefore, the system obviously needs to be balanced. The answer to how we solve it is actually quite simple. For centuries, we have grown food in the summer and stored it for when we need it in the winter, and precisely that is what we can do with energy. We store it when we have plenty of supply to use it when we need it. The system simply must become smarter and more flexible and include more energy storage. To stimulate and accelerate the development of different types of storage to be able to meet the climate crisis, Miljöpartiet has an investment support of 3 billion per year.

Sweden also has good conditions to produce electrofuels, and we want to accelerate that technology with an introduction support.

Sweden's electricity grid is in great need of expansion and development. Miljöpartiet wants to upgrade the Swedish electricity grid so that the entire country gets a smart, flexible and robust electricity grid that can handle significantly more electricity. There are also fully investigated proposals here that the government should implement as soon as possible.

Miljöpartiet naturally rejects the government's proposal for credit guarantees for new nuclear power, but it could at least have been technology-neutral so that it includes all types of energy that one says are needed for the transition.

The government is doing somewhat the opposite of promoting the electrification it says is the answer to much of the climate challenge we face, because it is raising the tax on electricity and lowering the tax on gasoline. From next year onwards, the tax on electricity will be almost twice as high as on gasoline per unit of energy, and that is a step in the wrong direction.

Madam Speaker! What we need is state leadership in the green transition, an investment budget that enables it, a massive expansion of sustainably produced energy already by 2030 and thereafter an investment in energy efficiency, an expanded power grid and a smart electricity system.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Linus Lakso, for the speech! One can discuss the Green Party's energy policy, or one can discuss reality.

I have two questions. The first concerns the energy system that Miljöpartiet says they want to have, which consists of renewable, weather-dependent energy sources, is flexible, as well as has energy storage and so-called smart grids. Is there an example of something such as that which works in the world? I asked for such an example earlier in the debate but received none in the statement. Give me a single example that this is possible and realistic! Svenska kraftnät says, for example, that it is totally and completely unrealistic.

We could go through many parts of the Green Party's dream world that are totally unrealistic. Among other things, they want to invest 3 billion to develop the energy storage that everyone says is unrealistic in the short, medium, and long term. The Green Party wants to put Sweden and the Swedish business community on pause while this is researched, if it is even possible at all.

I want an example in the world of exactly that power system that Miljöpartiet proposes. Then we can discuss the realism of this. I realize that I am boring talking about realism, science, technology, and laws of nature in this debate with Miljöpartiet, but I still want that example.

Linus Lakso also mentioned the Chalmers report, Madam Speaker, which came out this summer and which says that it is entirely possible with a system based on renewable power sources. My question is whether Linus Lakso has read that report and if he, in that case, thinks it is good.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Yes, I have read that report and yes, I think it is good. I do not understand the problem that the member points out. I do not know if I can discern where the member wants to get to, but in the report, one looks at how a renewable energy system can be balanced on an hourly basis, and such technologies already exist today. Even today, batteries are involved in balancing the electricity system, for example when a nuclear reactor is scrammed. That has happened both this winter and last winter. In those cases, clustered batteries are part of the solution and can quickly supply power.

Different electricity grid companies that I have spoken with have forecasts showing that we may already by this summer or within a year have 1 gigawatt of battery capacity installed in the Swedish power grid. That is enough to replace all the rotational energy or inertia that exists in the entire Nordic power system.

Madam Speaker! There are already solutions today for the problems that Mats Green paints a picture of. The energy storage technologies I mentioned already in the previous turn are a hundred years old and can be used now, for example, pumped storage, thermal storage, batteries and not least hydrogen. It is so curious that the energy demand that arises is largely based on the fact that the industry wants to use precisely hydrogen in its processes. The industry in the north wants to use it for fossil-free steel production and on the west coast, they want to use it in the chemical industry. It then becomes, by definition, very flexible.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not get a single example of the fantasy energy system that Miljöpartiet advocates for. There is not a single example in the world of it being realistic. Nor is it desirable for anyone when there is no predictable energy at all. It is based on technology that does not exist instead of old, proven, honest, climate-smart technology that we know delivers. There is not a single example of Miljöpartiet's fantasy energy system working anywhere. I believe one needs to take that with them.

We cannot afford to experiment or to put Sweden on pause while this technology potentially develops far into the future. Svenska kraftnät and many others say that it is totally unrealistic.

When it comes to the Chalmers report that I asked if the member had read, I can only state that it is very interesting. Linus Lakso thought it was a good report, but in all scenarios, nuclear power is included. The report is based on the premise that one builds massively with nuclear power in Germany. One of the most anti-nuclear countries in the world is assumed in this report to carry out a historically large investment in new nuclear power. That probably says quite a lot about the realism of the report.

For Sweden to manage with a power system that only has weather-dependent power sources, it is assumed in all scenarios in the Chalmers report that Germany has invested in nuclear power. That is what we are talking about, Madam Speaker.

I want further answers from Member Linus Lakso both regarding the Chalmers report and whether there are any examples of the Green Party's fantasy system.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Mats Green has considerable self-confidence that goes against actors such as the IEA, the UN's climate panel, and Chalmers University of Technology. They point out that it is the Green Party's policy that has a grounding in reality and the laws of physics. In Australia, there are already parts of the electricity system based on essentially 100 percent renewable energy, but above all, this is a technological development that is occurring.

The most remarkable and fantasy-based thing here is that Mats Green's own government does not have a single answer on how we are to deliver sufficient amounts of fossil-free electricity by 2030 and 2035. Even if, in the best of worlds, two new nuclear power plants are in place by 2035, it only covers 20 percent of the electricity demand. That one does not understand that equation is frightening both for those of us who are actually concerned about the climate threat we face and for the industry, of course. They face gigantic investments and want to know if there are long-term rules of the game.

Will we have a government that starts the processes already now to have the energy we need in place by 2030? The Tidö parties are acting in the opposite direction. They are stopping 70-100 percent of the wind power through the municipal veto, and with that statistic, the answer is unfortunately no. This government will not be able to deliver what either the climate transition or the industry needs. It is very serious.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 19 December.)

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