Energy

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Industry's report NU3 Expenditure Area 21 Energy. I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

Mr. Speaker! The investments in planned, fossil-free and large-scale electricity production have laid the foundation for Swedish entrepreneurship and competitiveness, which in turn has laid the foundation for jobs and prosperity.

Our unique energy mix, where fossil-free hydropower and nuclear power have formed the base, gave us a head start for a long time compared to the rest of the world.

As conservatives, we in Sverigedemokrater are guided by the principle that one should not destroy what works and not tear down what has taken many decades to build up.

It is among other reasons why we look back with horror at the harmful and irresponsible policies of recent decades in a number of different areas, including energy policy. It is a policy that has been pursued by many parties, but with the Social Democrats at the forefront.

Despite all warnings from the industry and Svenska kraftnät, Barsebäck was shut down, and through subsidies for renewables, especially wind power, the introduction of a punitive tax on nuclear power and goals of 100 percent renewable electricity production, they then continued to systematically penalize nuclear power.

Mr. Speaker! What were the consequences? Shutdown of additional reactors, reduced transmission capacity, increased weather dependency, raised prices, periods of power shortages and thus missed business establishments, and the EU's worst power balance were some of the consequences, not least because during their time in government they also failed to secure sufficient transmission capacity and balance and reserve power. On the contrary, they instead introduced a penalty tax on combined heat and power and heat production.

I would call this complete incompetence, even in this area. Social Democratic governments have indeed done everything they could to shut down well-functioning, efficient, and fossil-free nuclear power and at the same time blame the market, whose conditions they have been involved in establishing. We have seen the result, not least in recent years.

This debate, moreover, has very poor timing for the wind power fan club here in the chamber. The situation is, in fact, extremely acute. Now there are record prices again and, furthermore, records in the differences between the different electricity price areas.

Above all, southern Sweden has been hit, and since 70 percent of the industry's energy consumption occurs in just southern Sweden, the prices do not only hit households extremely hard but also the competitiveness of companies. The reason, Mr. Speaker, is calm and clear weather and an even more extreme environmentally partisan German policy. It is simply cold, and there is too little wind.

Who could have guessed that this would happen sooner or later? It is not that I have not stood here in the chamber countless times and warned against exactly this situation. We have stood here many times and discussed and debated the electricity market.

Even here, the Social Democrats have led the way for an opposition that has in common that they seem to want to drive their foot even deeper into the snare that they have already set their foot in.

Mr. Speaker! The electricity market is complicated, but one does not actually need to have defended a thesis on the Swedish electricity market to understand the following: We have generally seen a surplus of electricity production and export between 15 and 20 percent of it to foreign countries. But at the same time, we have a shortage of power during unfavorable weather conditions, as now.

This is due to the fact that Swedish energy policy has been governed by ideological dogmatists over the last decades. Plannability has been replaced by weather dependency. And lo and behold – not even now do they want to acknowledge their mistakes. The solution to the current problem, according to the opposition, is namely even more wind power. It is a bit like putting out a fire with gasoline.

Mr. Speaker! The definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. This is a well-known quote attributed to Albert Einstein that fits very well with the opposition's proposal for the budget for the expenditure area that we are debating here in the chamber today, because if one reads the opposition's proposal, one realizes that no buttons have fallen off - none!

The situation is acute, Mr. Speaker, very acute, not just in Sweden. German industry is in crisis. Electricity prices are skyrocketing, industry is shutting down or moving operations to other parts of the world, and German SPD and Green Party members who were involved in shutting down all nuclear power are now talking about building new ones again.

The devastating consequences of the environmentalist energy policy are now obvious both on the continent and here at home. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the opposition here proposes more of the same medicine.

Vänsterpartiet wants to phase out nuclear power completely in 15 years. 20 percent of Sweden's planned electricity production shall be replaced with wind power, above all, in 15 years. At the same time, there has been talk of cutting the cable to the south to protect us against environmentally unfriendly German prices, without a thought that we are now dependent on being able to import when it is not blowing. The same applies to Miljöpartiet.

The Social Democrats, on the other hand, want, at least according to their budget, nothing other than to pull back on research into nuclear power and have the municipalities that have said no to wind power installations reconsider their decisions. The Social Democrats want, just like the rest of the opposition, to steamroll everything from property owners, primary industries, the defense, and professional fishers to cultural industries and ordinary people in order to achieve even more of the kind of power that has put us and parts of Europe in the acute situation we are in today.

We are sitting here with the answer key in hand, and yet we have an opposition that wants to see a continued massive expansion of weather-dependent wind power. One wonders, Mr. Speaker: When is it enough? Is it when all Swedish industry has moved to Asia, when no one can afford to pay their electricity bills, or when Sweden has become a developing country? When is it enough?

Thanks to us, the Sweden Democrats, a number of paradigm shifts have slowly occurred or begun to occur in Swedish politics. This applies to migration, integration, crime policy, and actually even energy policy.

The need for new baseload power is great, and over the past year we have worked diligently on the conditions for new nuclear power. It is now permitted to build new nuclear power in more locations than those currently existing. The limitation that there may only be ten reactors has also been removed.

Investing in new nuclear power is initially very capital-intensive and requires long-term perspective. Therefore, we are now issuing credit guarantees totaling 400 billion for those who wish to invest. These are, nota bene, not handouts but loans - long-term loans - at a reasonable interest rate.

These first steps take us a bit of the way toward recreating what we once had, namely one of the world's best, most competitive, secure and fossil-free energy systems, where nuclear power, with all its positive characteristics, constituted an obvious part.

But, Mr. Speaker, it takes time - at least a decade in the real world - before new nuclear power is in place. We Sverigedemokrater, who belong to the pragmatic ones here in the chamber, have already proposed an interim solution with gas turbines.

Gas turbines are quick to install, and the technology works excellently as both base load and regulating power. Gas turbines installed in the right locations can contribute to stabilizing the grid and increasing transmission capacity, but also cover part of the existing capacity shortage.

In Western Sweden, where reality has hit the companies extra hard, there is actually right now what we can call a form of consensus across the block boundaries. Two three gas turbines are already to be underway. The idea is that they shall stabilize the power grid when the wind dies down. This is something that even the friends of wind power in here should actually embrace.

Mr. Speaker! We have also, unlike the previous government, ensured that Svenska kraftnät has expanded the power reserve, which among other things has resulted in that Öresundsverket in Malmö will once again be a part of the Swedish power reserve and be phased out on the grid next year. This provides a welcome power supplement of 448 megawatts of electricity.

Finally, we in Sverigedemokrater went to the election to get order in Sweden again, and the budget proposal is another step in the right direction.

(Applause)

In this speech, Josef Fransson (SD) agreed.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Jessica Stegrud, for your speech!

Sometimes it becomes suffocating. Here in the chamber, where we enact laws, one must stick to the truth, but anything can come from the speaker's rostrum. I hope that Jessica Stegrud can point out when Vänsterpartiet has proposed that cables to the continent should be cut. I want to hear where Stegrud has obtained that image from. Where have we said that we shall cut cables?

Jessica Stegrud says that we risk the future of industry in Sweden if we do not have nuclear power. When I visit industry in northern Sweden - heavy industries, those that need a lot of energy - they say that it is not nuclear power that is their solution. They say that they want rules of the game so that they know there is enough energy, both in the present and until 2030-2035, so that they dare to invest.

I also want to ask what the Sweden Democrats mean that the difference would be if we had two more reactors running with today's rules – there is a best-before date even for them. What would the difference have been, for example, today, when there is a 9,000 percent difference in the price in northern Sweden and the price in southern Sweden? We would probably have exported the energy that these reactors had produced. What is the difference, do the Sweden Democrats mean, compared to the electricity we are to export today? What says that we would have a different situation with nuclear power?

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Birger Lahti for the questions. There were a number of them.

I have answered the first question about cutting the cables previously. One only has to google it: Nooshi Dadgostar, the leader of Vänsterpartiet, has stated it on a couple of occasions. That is where it comes from, but we can disregard that.

When it comes to the industry, I think: Is it the cumbersome high-risk projects in the north that Birger Lahti speaks of, Mr. Speaker, those that are now being pushed forward or scrapped and where enormous sums of tax money have largely been thrown into the sea? It concerns both EU funds and the money of Swedish taxpayers, and for that matter, the money of future Swedish pensioners. They have had to pay with high-risk capital there. I do not know if it is to protect the Swedish economy or Swedish taxpayers, but it is indeed the large projects.

When you speak with the industry, not just some large actors in the north, you hear that what they want are stable electricity prices. They want electricity around the clock, not just when the wind blows. That is the difference.

I would like to turn the question back. I also mentioned in my speech, Mr. Speaker, that the Left wants only renewable energy in just 15 years. How is that going to happen? It is completely unrealistic. It feels almost surreal to be asked questions here about price levels and other things when one continues to hold fast to that vision.

But I will still answer regarding the prices. You can go to Svenska kraftnät or any electricity analysis site on the internet, and it says clearly and plainly: It is calm, especially in southern Sweden, and Germany is cold. That causes the high prices. If there is no wind, there is no electricity production. Naturally, nuclear power could have stepped in in a completely different way if Germany had not shut down its nuclear power. It is obvious.

It is, of course, not possible to say exactly how much it would affect the price every single second by eye.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the attempt at an answer from Stegrud.

I received no answer as to what the difference would have been on today's electricity price if it had been nuclear power electricity we exported - for that is what we do. We export surplus electricity from Sweden to the continent today. It affects the price we have today.

I leave the other attempts at answers aside. I just want to try to get one more answer: What do the Sweden Democrats say about the pricing model we have with marginal pricing? We have exports of electricity, regardless of whether it is nuclear power or not. When we export it to cover shortages in Germany and Poland, their prices rub off on us. That is what we call marginal pricing. What do the Sweden Democrats think of that model? Is it good for Sweden's competitiveness and Sweden's energy system that we have this marginal pricing?

I will not put words in anyone's mouth, but I have probably read somewhere that someone from the Sverigedemokraterna has stated that it might not be so great with this marginal pricing. What is the situation for the Sverigedemokraterna?

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I can answer that question quite directly: It can naturally be questioned. I agree with that. I have done so ever since my years in the energy industry.

But it is also somewhat symptomatic that the Left Party now, after having been involved in shutting down predictable, well-functioning nuclear power, shutting down capacity and shutting down the possibility of measuring the market in a completely different way, is coming and is going to rectify things from another angle. One should perhaps have thought about it before wanting to be so enormously integrated into the common electricity market union and before transferring power to other actors, for example Brussels. One should sometime think about it beforehand, instead of coming now and saying that we need to have a discussion about this.

I think this gives the wrong incentives to the market. We should fundamentally not have to pay for German very bad left-wing and Green Party policy.

But I am once again getting no answers. You want to continue. Does the Left Party believe, Mr. Speaker, that a new pricing model will benefit the Swedish electricity market in the long run if the Left Party also continues to shut down all the nuclear power we also have?

It is time for a small course correction of Left Party policy here. Back to reality!

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I also naturally have views on the description of reality that Jessica Stegrud expressed from the rostrum, not least when she said that Sweden has large deficits today. We have exported to the continent these days and will surely continue to do so. It is also not the case that wind power would not deliver during these days, on the contrary. I looked just now, and it was around 20 percent of the Swedish production. The description is therefore fundamentally incorrect.

However, it would be good if Jessica Stegrud had the opportunity to, for example, press the stop button on this new, flow-based system, which has indeed raised prices in Sweden. It benefits some producers, but above all, it benefits foreign consumers. It was clear that the system would have those effects, and it would have been very good if Jessica Stegrud had previously said, just as we have, that this should not be implemented in this form.

There was still an opportunity for the government to pause the system. It would have been good if the Sverigedemokraterna had tried to get it to do that. You do, after all, have a decisive influence on this government. That was the first thing.

The second thing is that the entire speech was about how nuclear power must come and save us. As recently as today, the nuclear power coordinator said that the timeline probably will not hold. This will take longer. Then the question is what the Sweden Democrats think we should do in the meantime to give the industry opportunities to develop in Sweden. We do not just want it to transition; we also want to get new investments to Sweden. There are many who want to come here. Shall we really ignore the great opportunity that Sweden has to become a winner, build more prosperity, and create more jobs?

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Fredrik Olovsson for the questions.

It is a bit interesting that the member stands here and talks about truths. I then take it for granted that the member considers that Svenska kraftnät is lying when they now announce that the prices are primarily due to the fact that it has blown less and that it is cold. Perhaps we then have an authority that lies straight out.

One cannot go in for a single second and see how things stand. It is a very strange claim, quite simply.

When it comes to the flow-based calculation model, its effect is not clarified today. It is a pure lie to stand and say that the prices depend on it. There is nothing that indicates that now. This will be scrutinized over time.

We Sverigedemokrater have been careful to ask if there can be a way back if that should be needed. I have also personally asked the minister, Mr. Speaker, about any measures. It is not the case that we have not been on that ball.

It is, as has been said, pure lies that are being spread today. Even the member's party leader has now been out speaking against better knowledge. It is actually astonishing.

I was early in the debate, quite a while ago, out and speaking about what we can do while waiting for new planned large-scale nuclear power. That is also what I have done in my speech here today. It is primarily gas turbines. Now I have heard that even environmentalist activists and Social Democrats have started talking about it. I do not understand at all why that should be so surprising. It is well an excellent way.

When it comes to this demand and the fantastic investments in the north, I have stood here and warned what high-risk projects they are. I have warned that not all of them will go through and become the fantastic success story that the member here has claimed. But Social Democrats never learn - Stålverk 80, Gobigas and so on. Social Democrats have an ability to not learn anything from history.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats have built one of the world's absolute best countries. We have done that continuously and with great force, and we would like to continue doing so. An important part of that is, of course, to achieve an industrial renewal and development. We do not believe, as conservative politicians, that the industry is basically gone and that we are to live by washing each other's shirts.

We truly believe in Swedish industry, in Swedish production capacity, and in Swedish industrial workers. We know that they can do it if they get the chance. An important part of that moving forward will be to expand more electricity production.

Then it is good if Jessica Stegrud and I agree that part of the solution can be to build gas turbines. It is even so good that they are often built in Sweden. It can create new jobs in Swedish factories, in Swedish industry. They get orders from all over the world, because many others are also involved in this. It creates jobs at Hitachi in Ludvika, which also deals with the energy transition. There, they hire three people a day - really a day. It is fantastic, and it is an opportunity for Sweden to become a big winner.

But the point with the gas turbines is not that they are to run a lot. It becomes expensive. The point is that when we build them, we can also add more wind power. That is what is the nice thing.

The coordinator himself now says that the nuclear power projects are becoming even more delayed. And the proposal has received harsh criticism. That should make the government and the Sweden Democrats reflect on how to design such proposals in the future. It therefore does not seem to be going very fast.

What is the answer then? Is it not, also for the Sweden Democrats, that we should have more wind power? That is what it should be.

When it comes to the flow-based [system], I think it would be very good if Jessica Stegrud could tell us about the way back. It is needed, in fact. It was known from the beginning that this system would lead to higher prices in Sweden. That is bad for Swedish consumers but good for foreign ones.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker and Fredrik Olovsson! I note that it has taken a couple of years of my harping here in the chamber for the member to understand the connection between wind power and gas power. The penny may have dropped a little bit.

But the member also said that we export and produce more than ever. That says most of it. What is it that is so hard to understand? We have overproduction of electricity, but we have a shortage of capacity. Still, the member wants to pour on even more weather-dependent wind power. What is it that is so hard to understand? It is incredibly fascinating.

It is the same when it comes to this issue with the flow model. Again: There is nothing today that indicates that it is due to the flow-based method. Everything indicates at the current stage that it is the weather. Why then stand and pump out this lie before we know? It only takes away the little trust that might have remained for Social Democratic energy policy.

In the question regarding the way back, we do not need to look at that yet. We shall first see how it has gone, quite simply.

When it comes to the fundamental problem, however, the way back to a stable and robust electricity system is actually to bring in more predictable, fossil-free, large-scale nuclear power. We are working very hard on that.

If there is a change of government - God save us - it will, however, become problematic. The Social Democrats want, together with Green Party ministers - there are even to be Left Party ministers in the government - to shut down all the nuclear power we have left. That is what we have to look forward to in a change of power. Then we can run on gas turbines and wind power. It simply will not hold.

Mr. Speaker! I do not know what to say. It is fascinatingly illogical.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The SD government has now governed Sweden for more than half a parliamentary term, and they have in no way solved any problems – rather, the opposite. A great deal is talked about, but the results are meager.

Unemployment is at its highest in ten years, and it is increasing in broad groups. The bankruptcies in Swedish business are at levels we have not seen since the 90s crisis. The government borrows for its tax cuts for high-earners while ordinary Swedish families are tormented by shrinking margins and high prices on food and today also on electricity. Growth is therefore, unsurprisingly, at rock bottom in a European comparison.

In the energy area, there is actually not much that is different. The government's and the Sweden Democrats' policy has increased emissions. They have slowed down electrification, and they say no to and stop new electricity on a very large scale. The conditions for the offshore wind farms have worsened, and a long parade of rejections of applications has been delivered. These are projects that would have driven investments, private investments, of hundreds of billions of kronor and provided at least 100 terawatt-hours of new electricity.

The government also reaps the destructive rhetoric about steel forests. Almost no new investment decisions are being made regarding land-based wind power. As time passes, it also becomes increasingly unlikely that the government will gain any momentum that would ultimately result in creating new supply during this or the next mandate period.

Swedish industry and all the actors who want to develop and invest in Sweden have pricked up their ears. The policy that the Tidö parties are pursuing not only increases emissions but is also combined with a shaky rhetoric regarding the political support for industrial renewal and development. That is what we just heard.

That direction is wrong. When the signals from the government are, at best, unclear and from the Sweden Democrats are very negative, faith in the future naturally erodes. Then the actors wait with investments. Then they recalculate, then they reflect further, and then they look for other countries or simply lose valuable time. It is clear that it is very bad for Sweden.

I will also say something about nuclear power. I am sure that the will in this area is very great; it was at least so recently with Jessica Stegrud. But that which was supposed to go fast and be very cheap now seems to be heading in the exact opposite direction. The government's investigation on the financing of new nuclear power has received very harsh criticism during the referral process. Today, the nuclear power coordinator also says that the timetable will not be met.

What has been put forward in the criticism has, for large parts, been what we Social Democrats also said: It can become a very expensive story for taxpayers and households.

Perhaps most seriously is that the policy currently being pursued risks undermining other productive and profitable investments. It is clear that just the knowledge that very much large-scale production is to be introduced can affect the investment conditions here and now for all other actors. And when that production is also to come from a type of power that is proposed to be heavily subsidized and guaranteed very high prices, it naturally becomes dramatic. It increases uncertainty and significantly worsens the calculation for all other cheaper and more profitable investments.

It is obvious that the way the government is now driving the issue worsens and hinders the possibilities of producing other power that is needed now and also while waiting for nuclear power, if that is the path one wants to take. The industry needs new electricity before new nuclear power is in place, and competitive prices are required both now and later in order to manage the jobs and prosperity. Otherwise, this electricity is not needed at all, if it becomes too expensive.

The lack of a holistic view and socio-economic analysis of how the future electricity system should be structured could seriously harm Sweden. We believe that nuclear power has an important role in the Swedish energy mix, and it will continue to have it for an extremely long time. We want to see the power increases that can be made, and we want to see the life extensions that can be achieved. We want them to become a reality. But the Tidö parties must take the harsh criticism that the government's nuclear power proposal has received very seriously. It could go really badly otherwise.

Mr. Speaker! It is of course possible to choose a better path than the one that the government and the Sweden Democrats have embarked upon. We Social Democrats want ambitious energy policy goals to be set as early as 2030 and that obstacles be removed so that they can also be achieved. Swedish families and companies must be able to rely on that there will be more electricity at low prices now and not just in a distant future.

We want to take advantage of the capacity that can come from, for example, Kriegers flak and other permitted offshore wind projects so that the electricity reaches land and lowers the prices, not least in southern Sweden. We want the government to take responsibility now and actively point out the areas in the Baltic Sea where they want offshore wind power to be built.

We want people to forget the steel forests and instead give a speed bonus to municipalities that change their veto for land-based wind so that mature projects, which have come far in their planning, are implemented as soon as possible. We cannot just start from scratch all the time.

We believe that one should ensure investments in the technology that makes it possible to further increase renewables, not least wind power. There are great opportunities to invest in power electronics, grid reinforcements, batteries and gas turbines that make the system more stable and cost-effective. This also creates jobs and growth in Swedish companies that are world leaders in the field.

We must take advantage of the opportunities for increased output that exist in hydropower. In our motion, we highlight the need to utilize and streamline it. The Government should take note of what Sveriges Ingenjörer recently showed in a report, namely that through upgrades or installation of turbines and units, the output can be increased by 400 megawatts by 2030 and by 1,300 megawatts by 2035. The State should take action on this modernization of what has been and is the backbone of the Swedish electricity system.

It is not only electricity customers who are having a hard time. It also applies to district heating customers. The government has completely neglected the large price increases that affected society broadly. It applies to tenants, villa owners, and business owners. In our budget, we are lowering the prices by several hundred million kronor. We thus also safeguard the central function of district heating and combined heat and power in the local and regional systems.

We must also not forget energy efficiency. If others optimize and become more efficient, it can create space for new actors, and it also lowers prices for everyone.

We should reform the tax deduction for energy improvements so that it has a focus on energy efficiency and improve it so that more people can afford to use it. Since the government has also destroyed construction in Sweden, we would help installers and construction workers through a tough period. We also want tenants to receive support during energy renovations of multi-family buildings, and we allocate funds so that more people can be an active part of flexible solutions and support services.

These are important proposals that can accelerate the expansion of electricity and can create space for the industry's growth and electrification. With the government's policy, far too much is put on hold, and it will be devastating for Swedish growth, Swedish jobs, and thus Swedish welfare.

The government, however, has refused to pause, which we have already spoken about today, namely the introduction of a new flow model on the electricity market. One of the major actors in Sweden says that this will raise their prices by perhaps 100-150 million kronor going forward. It would be appropriate if the model were withdrawn. It would be good for Sweden.

We have no reservations in the matter because the frameworks on which our budget is based are already fixed, and it was not our frameworks that won. But we naturally stand behind all the proposals in our budget motion.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden, together with Denmark, has the highest wind power production per capita in the entire world. By the end of the year, wind power will be the single largest power source in terms of production capacity. But today, it is calm in Europe, with electricity prices hitting records for the year and reminding us of the energy crisis.

In light of the Social Democrats' proposal to broaden the government's proposal on credit guarantees for nuclear power to include other types of power, in particular offshore wind power, I wonder: Do the Social Democrats really mean that the solution to this is even more wind power, which is also to be subsidized?

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, we believe that the entire electricity system needs to be expanded, and what can be expanded in the short term will be offshore wind power and onshore wind power. It could also involve gas turbines and power increases in both nuclear and hydropower. It is such measures that we should use as much of as we can. We should all agree on that.

The alternative is to say that it is not possible to do more - that Swedish industry will not get the electricity it needs and that this is not where they should seek their future. I refuse to believe that it is true. Compared to most other countries, we have a very strong, very large and well-functioning electricity system.

We are not satisfied in any way with today's situation. But if we continue to work with this and build electricity grids, invest in gas turbines, hydropower and offshore wind power, and ensure that the projects that have received permits also come to fruition, the conditions will of course improve for Sweden to become the big winner in the transition moving forward.

The level of ambition must be set there. One cannot simply think that one is going to patch and repair something based on how it looks today, but we want to expand the electricity system so that it becomes larger and can do more and that Sweden becomes wealthier. That is the whole point of the energy policy.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Olovsson for an answer that I recognize. More electricity, it is said. But Sweden does not have a shortage of electricity; we have a shortage of capacity. That more wind power does not solve any problems in this situation is a simple equation. The Government is investing in base load that can regulate the weather-dependent power outputs so that the electricity can be there when and where it is needed.

Wind power has long been prioritized, and the risk with the Social Democrats' proposal is that the planned power outputs would once again be pushed aside. There would be more days like today in a year with insanely high electricity prices. When will the Social Democrats learn from their mistakes and get behind the government's plan to make the whole thing work? It is exactly as the member himself described it: When will one understand how the system works?

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is of course a fallacy when one says that more offshore wind power in Sweden would not increase the possibility of obtaining more power. Of course it does.

The more we have of renewables and things that are in various ways weather-dependent, the more important it is that other measures are also taken. This could, for example, involve gas turbines or doing more for hydropower and nuclear power on the power side, where possible. All of this naturally needs to be done. To say that it doesn't matter is an incredibly strange fallacy.

This is also a signal to the entire industry - to Swedish companies - who are now helping with the transition in other countries. It is like saying that what they do is not so important. Those who employ the most are in this industry and ensure that this becomes possible in other countries. They should also be allowed to be involved in developing our country.

If this signal comes from the Christian Democrats and from Camilla Brodin, who sits in the Committee on Industry, it is very serious given that the Christian Democrats hold the Minister for Industry and Energy post. You can rely on the fact that we will do everything required for Sweden to manage this. The starting point cannot be the opposite.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Fredrik Olovsson for his speech. I could actually sign off on everything that Olovsson said, except that it was a bit vague when it comes to how we are to finance nuclear power if someone eventually wants to invest in such. But I agree and believe that it will be with us for a long time as a base power.

But I am actually curious about how the Social Democrats stand on the pricing model we have with marginal pricing. I know, in fact, that Fredrik Olovsson's party has had the Riksdag's research service look into it. You asked questions about the Beken model. My party asked approximately the same questions to the Riksdag's research service. I know that the answers that came from the Riksdag's research service were very vague. It is written that it would probably, or presumably, conflict with the EU's regulations on the free movement of goods and services. But there is nothing concrete about it not being feasible with another pricing model.

I know that there is very strong pressure even from Fredrik Olovsson's party because the model that this is based on is the reason why we see today that the residents of Skåne are on their knees when they can be made to pay between 3.50 and 8 kronor per kilowatt-hour, while I can buy the same product for 11 öre per kilowatt-hour. I do not think it is reasonable, even though I myself could buy it that cheaply.

What is the position of the Social Democrats on this pricing model, which is dysfunctional and actually outdated given that we are the largest exporter to the continent?

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that many parties have searched thoroughly in the cupboards to find good solutions to exactly this problem of us having far too high prices and that we have been infected by the European market. It has, of course, been during a very exceptional time in connection with the major energy crisis that Putin created and the problems that follow in its wake.

I believe that all parties have looked at this. We have, of course, also looked at the model with Swedish prices that Vänsterpartiet has presented. But we have not been able to see that it is possible to implement, and we do not quite understand how it would work in all parts.

We have presented other proposals instead. One is, for example, that we believe one should back down regarding the flow-based model which actually reinforces the problems. It is foreign consumers who will be the winners and Swedish consumers who will be the losers in that variant. We have instead put forward the possibility of folkhemsel, which is another way to secure low and stable prices through long contracts for a very large part of the electricity that households and companies need to use. It is a solution that, for example, large companies often make use of. We have thus landed on somewhat different conclusions regarding which path to take forward.

Then, of course, it is also very important that the European market functions better than it does today. And as long as Germany does not manage its energy market as it should, I think that Sweden and the Swedish government should be extremely harsh in their criticism and push forward, and also get the EU Commission on board in the work of ensuring that the electricity market is managed in a better way. Electricity zones are also required there if it is to be fair and reasonable conditions.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Fredrik Olovsson for the answer.

I have a follow-up question based on this. Marginal pricing and the common European market for electricity and free flow are actually based on the desire to have the same price throughout the EU for the same commodity.

I accept the argument that there are several things that cause it to accelerate further. It is primarily the Germans who do not have any electricity price areas. But that being said, we in Sweden have four electricity price areas, and we are connected to the continent. When the differences are so great between our own electricity price areas, how can one then accept the argument that we are to get the same price in the entire union?

I and Vänsterpartiet do not believe that we will succeed in getting the same price for the same product in the entire union, which is their wet dream. I understand those who push for this because they do not have the same conditions as we have in Sweden. It would be feasible if one prices the export item as a commodity in itself when it passes Swedish borders.

I just hope that we get more support to look at this model, because this will not hold up in the long run. Swedish consumers are on their knees, and the industry is being hit. It would be interesting to hear if the Social Democrats could also accept that we are dependent on another model for the Swedes to be able to support the system that we have in Sweden.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Birger Lahti for this. I believe we have the same ambition. Neither of us wants Sweden to be the major exporter of electricity to others and for us to have high prices in Sweden. We want to use our electricity and our raw materials and refine them to create new prosperity and new jobs in Sweden. That is, of course, our starting point.

Since then, it is clear that it has been of great benefit to Sweden that we have been in a Nordic system for a period of time. I believe that most see that that type of connection can also be good. It is not that all connections to other markets are bad. Sometimes one also needs help from others. But I completely agree that we must find a completely different balance here. And we must ensure that we protect both Swedish industry and Swedish households who are having it extremely tough right now. Then one should also do what one can here and now. And one of these things is what we have talked about today, the flow-based method, which could mean improvements. But we also need to ensure that we get more production, not least in southern Sweden. That there is so much production in northern Sweden is also what makes the prices low there and the surpluses large. That is what we would like to see in all of Sweden. We should not have high prices in the whole country, but they should be low in the whole country.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Fredrik Olovsson for his speech.

The Social Democrats are very quick to point out that new nuclear power is very expensive. But I want to put this into a bit of perspective. The decommissioning of well-functioning and life-extended nuclear power is estimated to have cost approximately 450 billion kronor according to 2023 electricity prices. It is also estimated to have caused missed investments of around 80 billion kronor per year.

The proposed amount has not been determined yet, but there has been talk of a price guarantee of 80 öre per kilowatt-hour.

In the UK, where there is a heavy investment in offshore wind power, we can see that they have had to have guaranteed prices of 116 öre per kilowatt-hour - up to 266 öre per kilowatt-hour. Furthermore, report after report comes out that the lifespan for offshore wind power is very short in comparison to onshore wind power, given the stresses that the weather imposes and so on.

Then there are a lot of other costs for Swedish electricity customers, and it is the balancing costs that have skyrocketed over the recent years and which are expected to increase even more precisely because we have increasingly weather-dependent power sources in the energy mix. That is being talked about. We have gone from 1 to 2 billion per year and are calculated to land on 20 billion per year within just a few years. Also add the grid expansion that is required for this.

I have a specific question. The member spoke warmly in favor of offshore wind power. On a day like this, what would Kriegers flak have contributed in terms of power when it is not blowing? I would like to have an answer to that.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is not primarily I who am saying that the proposal for new nuclear power financing that is on the table will become very expensive. It is the referral bodies, the experts at the agencies, who are saying it. It is, not least, the Institute for Economic Research, the government's expert agency on precisely economics and economic analysis, that is saying it. We have, of course, also said that is exactly how it looks, but we do receive support for that from those agencies. That is the first thing.

The second thing is what concerns support services and the costs for them. Now, the development has not quite been as Jessica Stegrud says, but it is clear that electricity prices drove up the costs for support services. However, it also does so, for example, the fact that one needs to have security for the large suppliers. Thus, nuclear power, for example, is ruled out. Then there must be help and support available to manage that situation. That also drives up costs in this area. That is also what SVK says. Now I did not include the quote. I will have to find it for the next exchange of remarks.

It does not mean that it cannot be possible to build new nuclear power. We are not against it. But we really wonder if the government and the Sweden Democrats have started at the right end when one puts a large wallet on the table and says: Here is money to be had!

The energy companies that have responded to the referral do not see these levels as the final point. This is rather to be seen as a negotiation proposal. We also see this in the prices that have been paid for new nuclear power in other countries. They are significantly above these levels in CFDs.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Fredrik Olovsson for the slight digression.

I think it is quite interesting that the member points out that one must start at the right end and claims that we in the government base are now starting at the wrong end. To start at the right end would have been to not shut down well-functioning, life-extended, and well-invested nuclear power. That, if anything, would have been starting at the right end.

Now we stand here and talk about the green transition, the future for green jobs and all sorts of things. We would have been very well-equipped for that if the Social Democrats had not shut down well-functioning, predictable and fossil-free nuclear power. The rest of the world has envied us our energy mix.

The problems we see now are obvious to everyone. It is not primarily a lack of electricity, but a lack of capacity and a lack of predictable large-scale electricity production. That is where the problem lies today. To supplement with more of the same medicine will not help at this stage. A certain sobering up is occurring; there is talk of gas turbines. In the next breath, people talk about climate goals. That is an interesting combination. We are pragmatists, so we see it a bit differently.

I received no answer. What would a large expansion of offshore wind power, such as Kriegers flak, have done for the power supply during such a cold and calm period as we are in now? In what way would it have helped the Swedish electricity system and thus the electricity prices? What effect would it have had on electricity prices, Fredrik Olovsson?

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not think we will agree on the historical description. It is not that nuclear power was phased out through political decisions. It was the market assessments that were made which meant that one did not want to make the type of investments that were required, especially after Fukushima. It was certainly the case that it was believed that the low electricity prices that were had then and had been had for a long time would persist. Today, it is possible that the corporate managements and the boards of those companies would have made different decisions. I cannot say that, but it may be so.

The second thing is that we really want to implement everything that is possible. We want to expand the system as soon as it is possible in a socio-economically efficient way to guarantee as low costs as possible for the industry and the households that need to electrify in order to be able to develop.

But it is naturally also the case that it will be precisely a mix that is the cheapest. Exactly how it should look, one obviously needs to calculate a bit more precisely. But it will be in a mix where we have wind power, nuclear power, hydropower and some other resources in the system that one finds the solution.

There, however, Jessica Stegrud finds no solution, but she only talks about something that perhaps should come later - apparently much later, because the nuclear power coordinator today says that it will take longer than the government has said. Then Jessica Stegrud is completely without an answer. Then there is no solution in Jessica Stegrud's world. Her politics cannot help people in the next 10-15 years. It must be quite depressing - but not for me, who actually knows that this is possible.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Expenditure area 21 Energy is the heading for this debate. The Riksdag has, through its decision on 27 November 2024, stipulated that the total expenditures for expenditure area 21 Energy may not exceed the more than 6.6 billion kronor during 2025 as the budget intends. Since the Left Party's proposal for appropriations within the expenditure area lies above that level, I cannot reserve myself in favor of our proposal. The budget alternative I stand behind should be seen as a whole. I therefore choose to refrain from taking a position during this part of the budget preparation. Instead, I present my opinion in a separate statement in the report.

The climate crisis is acute, and a rapid transition is required for Sweden to be able to reduce emissions. The goal I believe should be guiding is 100 percent renewable energy supply. This requires, among other things, a rapid expansion of renewable Swedish electricity production. The budget alternative for expenditure area 21 that I had supported in this second step of the budget preparation would have entailed a significantly more offensive energy policy than what the government proposes. Renewable energy sources would have been given priority over the government's unreasonably expensive and multi-dimensionally risky focus on nuclear power. Nuclear power initiatives do not only slow down the transition to renewable energy production. There is also apparently a lack of investors, as the government in the appropriation earmarks 400 billion for credit guarantees for nuclear power expansion.

To speed up the expansion of renewable power production, I believe that better incentives are needed for wind power both on land and at sea. I advocate for opportunities to benefit the municipalities where wind power is built as well as the residents. It is about extensive resource reinforcements to support local renewable electricity production and specific initiatives for offshore wind power projects. Furthermore, I would like to see the public, through a state-owned company, take control of such socially important activities as upcoming offshore wind projects can be considered to constitute.

In line with the expansion of renewable power production, it is also necessary to strengthen the power transmission capacity. I believe that funds should be allocated for extensive investments in both transmission capacity between the north and the south as well as the expansion of the electricity grid, so that it will be possible to connect more renewable power production and thereby also facilitate the climate transition.

Madam Speaker! I cannot for this world understand how the government is thinking. One is prepared to give guarantees of several hundred billion for a power type. But when it comes to the state providing the connection for offshore wind, it is altogether too expensive. And then one talks about technology neutrality. Talk about mythomania!

The green transition that is currently underway and which needs to accelerate requires a statement from the government. Will there be cheap, competitive electricity in Swedish power lines in 2030? The government is obligated to provide the answer. Industry is ready to do the right thing, and the transport sector needs to transition. But the only thing coming from the government is: Nuclear power!

Someone may have poor hearing, someone else poor vision. Someone might not be the fastest at understanding connections. But this government manages to bring all these handicaps along with it. It is Sweden's competitiveness and job opportunities that are at stake. When will the government wake up?

I am also convinced that the powerful expansion required is best carried out in the public sector. In this context, I also want to point out that the electricity grid companies' unreasonable fee increases in a monopoly market argue for a cap on these fees and also for the fact that there are good reasons to nationalize parts, and not just the transmission grid.

Madam Speaker! Now that we are debating, the price south of the Dalälven is an average of 3.50 kronor per kilowatt-hour during the day and peaks at 8 kronor per kilowatt-hour, while at home I can get the same product for 14 öre or 11 öre per kilowatt-hour. Then I must ask myself: Is it reasonable?

It is about Sweden prices or the Beken model that I have highlighted countless times in the rostrum, and also with the minister here today. A fifth price area is required for the export element. It must be priced in a different way.

I have tried to debate this with the Minister for Energy recently. There, it became quite clear once again that the government does not want to stand on the consumers' side. No, they would rather talk about food for children and about how I and the Vänsterpartiet are pushing for unimaginative solutions.

Andreas Cervenka wrote yesterday in Aftonbladet: Is someone mocking us? That question is truly justified. No, it is simply the truth. We have a government that watches as Swedish electricity consumers pay unreasonable electricity prices, especially in southern Sweden, due to a broken pricing model that allows the continent's failures to infect Sweden. Cervenka made an illustration in the article. It is as if people in Malmö would pay 3,700 kronor for a liter of milk and people in Sundsvall a twenty.

Madam Speaker! If this does not provoke a reaction, what is needed for people to react? The EU's wet dream of a common electricity market where the same price should prevail might have to be questioned since we in Sweden, with our own four price areas, have a price difference of 184 times or 1,800 percent as it was yesterday. Today it is at 8,000 percent; I do not know.

Columnists and opinion leaders are beginning to wake up now as prices soar. It is written that the politics have not woken up and do not prioritize it. That is true in so far as, until now, it is only Vänsterpartiet that, with an ass's persistence, is driving the issue that it is not reasonable that a socially important function such as electricity production is priced in a dysfunctional way that causes consumers to pay overprices for our own produced electricity.

Madam Speaker! What I hope for now is that the Swedish people will react. It is not because I and the Vänsterpartiet are the only ones pushing the issue, but because it is so insane that companies and households are paying overprices for something essential when there can be solutions that remedy the enormous capital transfer that is taking place.

That one prices gold and minerals with a marginal pricing in the world may happen. But that one prices a life-essential product that the Swedes, the industry, and our competitiveness need in the same way shows that we politicians have missed something.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Birger Lahti, for the speech!

In his speech, Birger Lahti claims that we have no other policy than to build new nuclear power. That is not true at all. We also, of course, want to maximize what we can with the power from hydropower, district heating, combined heat and power, and so on. This applies to all the opportunities that exist today. We have been on that ball for a long time.

It was not this government that introduced the carbon tax on, among other things, combined heat and power and district heating. It is quite bold to stand here and pretend otherwise. Efforts must be made on many different levels. That is how it is. Once again, the long-term solution is, despite everything, that we have more predictable base load.

Madam Speaker! It remains very interesting with the goal that the Left Party has that it should be 100 percent renewable in electricity production in 2040, that is to say in 15 years. I wonder how that is going to happen. How is the nationalization of all production going to happen?

We shall have no renewables at all and shut down all nuclear power. That will be the consequence of such a goal. I wonder what kind of balancing power is to be there. How is it to happen? It is so unrealistic, Madam Speaker, that I can hardly find words.

We have asked that question so many times. I would very much like to have an attempt at an answer in every case. Otherwise, perhaps it is just as well to change the objective in the party program.

I have one final closing question, which I also asked the Social Democrats. If we had invested and there had been a Kriegers flak up and running now, how much effect would it have had during these days when it is calm?

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Jessica Stegrud, for the questions!

First and foremost, we had an exchange of views on approximately the same issue earlier when I took the floor. At that time, Jessica Stegrud claimed that my party leader Nooshi Dadgostar had said that cables would be cut. I think Stegrud should go back, Google it, and show me where she finds that.

Then to the question that there are other types of energy than just nuclear power. I agree that they exist. But every time, and Stegrud has also shown this now in the exchanges, it is said that nuclear power has been closed down by political means.

I want to ask a question back to Jessica Stegrud. Do the Sweden Democrats have any best-before date on nuclear power? Or is it just nonsense when one says there is? Today, I believe that a reactor is standing still because there are cracks, and it has not produced for any weeks or perhaps even some months. Is there no basis for there being a best-before date for reactors in Sweden? The safety requirements that come from the outside, are they not relevant?

Madam Speaker! That is why I often land on: The answer to everything is nuclear power, and the answer is that everything depends on the old government. I do not buy that. Perhaps there could have been one more reactor if there had been different safety requirements or if the electricity tax had not been implemented. But I do not buy that one would have been in a different position.

Then I will answer the next question in my upcoming reply.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! I did not quite understand all the claims and questions. Furthermore, I received no answer. One rarely does. Again: How is it going to work during those 15 years?

The question was asked whether there is a fixed lifespan for a reactor. It is clear that there is. That is why we also want to build new ones. It is not the case that reactors last forever.

It is not a matter of us not living up to any safety requirements. On the contrary, we are world leaders in doing so. It is a self-evident fact in Swedish energy policy. It has even been so under previous governments. I do not understand the question at all.

I wonder again how it is going to work. I also received no answer from the Socialdemokraterna, Madam Speaker. I have an expanded Kriegers flak as an example. If it had been up and running, how much effect would it have given in such a calm period as we are in now? It is something that one never gets an answer to.

It was asked why we keep harping on about nuclear power. It is obvious. It is not primarily a lack of electricity. It is a lack of capacity. Nuclear power is something that has served the country incredibly well. It will reasonably also do so in the future. That is my answer to the question.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I begin with Kriegers flak. We do not have a calm wind in Sweden today. It should have delivered today. Perhaps the Germans do not have wind, but Kriegers flak should have delivered today combined with storage and gas turbines. We could fix a system that works.

I do not take for granted that we will not have nuclear power after 2040. It is very possible, and I must also adapt to actual events. But when it is claimed that we would not be able to fix a system without nuclear power in Sweden in the future, that is not true. Regarding when it will be phased out, I may perhaps have to revise my figures.

It is said here that we should not be serious when we look at what is possible and what is not possible. But I never received any answer from the Sverigedemokraterna on what the difference in price would have been today if we were to export nuclear power. It would have been the same price shock for the Swedes as the one we see today.

Regarding the power, during 2023 we had six days where we imported with net import. On all other days and all other hours we have had sufficient power. That this would be a huge problem today is also not true.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Energy policy needs long-term perspective. After many years of short-sighted decision-making, Sweden finally has a government that looks at the whole of how the power system should function.

The energy policy direction proposal marked a historical shift where the focus now lies on what the power system shall perform rather than what specific types of power it shall consist of.

The S-led governments decommissioned nuclear reactors and thought that the loss of electricity could be covered by weather-dependent power sources. But the laws of physics are clear: Without base load, the electricity is not there where it is needed when it is needed. We see this clearly today, when it is calm in Europe and electricity prices skyrocket.

Our primary problem is not a lack of electricity; it is the lack of capacity. Sweden produces much more electricity than we consume. Nevertheless, we are affected by volatile electricity prices and capacity shortages, where we are forced to import fossil electricity from our neighboring countries. We are in this situation today due to previous short-sightedness and decision-making that has benefited neither the climate, our self-sufficiency, nor the households' wallets.

Madam Speaker! That is why we persist regarding nuclear power. We do not do it because we are against other types of power. We do it because the weather-dependent power sources do not function without the predictable base load. That is how the equation looks, and it is not possible to compromise on this. Furthermore, the technology has not come far enough for us to be able to store energy from weather-dependent power sources in a scalable and cost-effective manner. And Sweden does not have time to wait.

We are optimistic regarding the technological development that is taking place, but we must take action already now. And in that regard, nuclear power, combined heat and power, and an increase in capacity of existing hydropower are the salvation of the power system.

Madam Speaker! The opposition takes every chance they get to fuel a narrative that we are opposing wind power. They base this on the fact that the government does not pay connection fees for offshore wind power and that we had to deny permits for several offshore wind power projects in the Baltic Sea.

I consider it a self-evident matter for the government to take into account well-considered recommendations from our authorities. The Armed Forces advised against certain projects in the Baltic Sea because they risk weakening Sweden's defense capability.

Furthermore, we Christian Democrats want the application processes to be improved by pre-identifying which locations are suitable for new establishments. Svenska kraftnät advises against taxpayers and electricity consumers paying billions in connection fees for offshore wind when this is not done for other types of power. There are companies that manage to make the profitability calculation work regardless. This government is also not going against municipalities' right to self-determination, and during our government's term, the municipal veto is also not threatened.

This is a perfectly reasonable decision-making process. The power system is critical infrastructure. But new power sources cannot simultaneously cost whatever at any time - not when there are alternatives, and above all not when more weather-dependent electricity in the power system does not matter if we do not first deal with the power shortage.

I also want to remind that Sweden is the world's most wind power-friendly country. Together with Denmark, we have the most wind turbines per capita, and wind power is growing to become the single largest power source in terms of installed production capacity. It is not a lack of wind power; it is once again a lack of power.

Madam Speaker! We are carrying out a climate transition where we need to electrify our transport and our industry. This requires a lot of electricity, and above all, it requires secure electricity supply. Sweden now has the goal of becoming the world's first fossil-free industrialized welfare nation. Electrification is the key to strengthening our competitiveness and our security of supply and to phasing out fossil fuels for the climate transition. The phasing out of expensive, imported fossil fuels reduces our vulnerability to high energy prices and to disruptions in a sensitive global situation.

Through the energy policy orientation bill, which was decided by the Riksdag in May, Sweden has, for the first time in several decades, both a planning goal and a security of supply goal. The planning goal means that Sweden should plan to be able to meet an electricity demand of at least 300 terawatt-hours per year by 2045.

For this, the government has made more than 50 decisions and taken measures that are judged to strengthen the energy supply as early as around 2030. Through Kraftlyftet, the government invests in securing power where it is needed. The electricity market investigation was initiated to achieve a better electricity market. Decisions have been made on pilot projects with gas turbines in Västra Götaland. Öresundsverket and its planned power are maintained and restarted during 2025.

Hydropower shall receive better conditions here and now. Likewise, long-term and stable conditions are presented for existing and new nuclear power.

A financial incentive is established for municipalities that choose to accept the establishment of wind power. Connection queues are streamlined, and permit processes are improved.

Madam Speaker! You do not build a wind turbine or a nuclear power plant in a day. It takes time. Energy infrastructure is an immensely technical and complex field, which is difficult to communicate to the general public. You do not win elections by explaining how a power system is best managed or how many years it takes to expand or maintain. It is simpler to say that there are quick and easy solutions here and now.

But we cannot use the energy infrastructure as a political punching bag. We all in this chamber need to take responsibility for putting ideology aside. I appeal to our opposition parties to stop being in conflict with the laws of physics. It is high time for long-term thinking, and it is high time for predictability in energy policy.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Camilla, for the speech!

We do not have time to wait, said the member from the speaker's podium. And I agree with her. We do not have time to wait for a nuclear reactor that might be in place in 15 years and for which one might find an investor.

The price tag is also uncertain. We do not even know how much it will cost per kilowatt-hour, and it has even been guaranteed that the state will be left out of pocket if the investors do not receive 80 öre.

I also agree regarding the laws of physics. But a lot is happening in storage, energy efficiency, and smart grids. In the technological development of solar cells and wind power, something has happened. Something has happened in just 15 years.

But what has happened regarding the expansion of nuclear power? We have been on a trip and looked at nuclear power. People talk about SMR reactors, but they don't exist anywhere yet. People talk about expanding nuclear power with old technology, which was exactly the same 30 years ago.

Then the question to Camilla Brodin and KD is: Which law of physics is closest to it, storage coupled with renewable energy, where technological development is moving forward, or something revolutionary regarding nuclear power, which is believed to become cheaper, better and safer? What is it that one believes is closest to it?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Birger Lahti for the questions.

I would like to start by saying that during the previous parliamentary term, both the member and I sat on the Committee on Industry, where we debated energy issues. We also made attempts to ensure that we would not get the high electricity prices in southern Sweden by also having Ringhals 1 and 2 on the table. We had a vote here in the chamber.

I requested a committee initiative where I tried to explain that I understand that you do not like nuclear power. We said that we knew it would become a tough situation for southern Sweden if nuclear power were phased out, so we asked if you could at least be prepared to keep it until there is something else in place. The current opposition refused to discuss it at all.

We now have a situation with high electricity prices in southern Sweden. We have never said that it will be fast to build nuclear power. Eight years ago, the S-led government also decided to scrap the plans to build two new reactors. Why did they do that? Well, because they were in a government with the Green Party, for example, supported by you, to not ensure that we could have the starting position that we would have so much needed in today's situation.

If Birger Lahti is not aware of all the 50 different points that we have put on the table in order to succeed, both in the short and long term, in turning the ship around to obtain a robust and secure electricity system, I have them here. The member can read them.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank Camilla Brodin for the answer and the question.

A question that hangs in the air is how one can claim that it was the Sledda government that caused the expansion to not continue. In that case, it was ministerial rule, and then you clearly should have reported some minister. It was the company itself that made the decision. It was not a political decision not to continue with the plans. It was the company that decided it. If ministerial rule has occurred, I think you should report some minister.

Regarding the old reactors 1 and 2, which were not put into operation because we did not believe in them, I must ask a question to Camilla Brodin, who still has the chance to answer it. Today's electricity price is 8,000-9,000 percent higher in price area 4 than in price area 1. Would there have been any difference in price today if we had had Ringhals 1 and 2 running? Then we would have had their electricity which we export. The same price contagion from the continent would have affected these prices.

I think that Sweden's electricity consumers should honestly know that there is no difference whether we export nuclear power or wind power. It is the system that is wrong when Swedish consumers in Skåne today pay 8 kronor or 3.50 kronor per kilowatt-hour. Does Camilla Brodin agree with that, or do you have another answer as to why it looks like this? Is there any difference if one exports nuclear power or wind power to the continent today?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! I do not know where to begin. But I can at least invite the member to a small crash course in how the system works.

First and foremost, there are reports from Energiforsk which also show that if we had kept Ringhals 1 and 2, we would have had lower prices in southern Sweden. We need predictable power in southern Sweden to push down the prices on the electricity that we import from the continent.

We must also place the responsibility here on Germany, which has not done what the EU has established. Also Denmark, which is located quite close, affects how the situation looks in southern Sweden.

If we had kept Ringhals 1 and 2, the prices would have been 35-45 percent lower. There are studies that show that.

I welcome Birger Lahti to join a small electricity school with me, so we can take it further from there.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I remind the members that the address in the chamber is not "you", but we all speak via the Speaker. I hope that everyone is aware of this.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! I have some questions for Camilla Brodin.

The Leader of the Opposition claimed that this government is not opposing the renewable. It is a fairly simple logic that if we have more power production generally, we get lower prices generally.

Not least the Christian Democrats have stopped approximately 70 percent of land-based wind power through the municipal veto. They have laid a dead hand over all offshore wind power in the Baltic Sea without investigating how one can actually coexist with defense interests. Tomorrow, a new investigation is expected to be presented which will lay a dead hand on the rest of the offshore wind power over the next ten years. According to the information I have received, they at least have no sensible transitional solution for the projects that have already come far.

They also worsen the situation for solar power by removing the so-called 60-öre and lowering the green support for those who actually want to produce their own electricity.

It is thus a long series of deteriorations for the renewable [energy] that are being implemented. This leads to the investments in new power production coming to a standstill.

To remedy the situation with extremely high electricity prices, we first and foremost need more dispatchable power. It is actually good that the government and Camilla Brodin have come to their senses and listened to the Miljöpartiets proposals. We already proposed in the previous budget what we call green base power. There we now see a pale copy where one invests far too little in what is called Kraftlyftet. How many gigawatt-hours of dispatchable power will that investment provide?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Lakso for the questions and various allegations.

We need to look again at whether it is more electricity production or more capacity we need. I hope we are still in agreement that we need more capacity. But if it is then to be weather-dependent power, as Miljöpartiet advocates, I ask the opposition once again to put the ideological blinkers aside a little bit to look at what the laws of physics look like in the first place. How do we ensure that southern Sweden also receives secure electricity supplies at reasonable prices? That is not how it looks in the current situation.

My question in return concerns nuclear power. Is the Green Party an ideological opponent of nuclear power, or can you see any use for it at all?

We and Miljöpartiet are not always in agreement on everything, but we can still have sensible conversations and many good inputs. Then I do not think that Kraftlyftet was Miljöpartiet's merit. I believe that it will truly help where it is needed to find the controllable power that actually helps the system in southern Sweden to be able to become really good.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if Camilla Brodin should have such a high tail-wagging and talk about the laws of physics if she cannot distinguish between energy and power. My question concerned exactly power and adjustable capacity. I did not receive an answer to my question regarding how many gigawatts Kraftlyftet will deliver. I can inform that we had an initiative with exactly the same content called Kraftsteget in the previous budget. It is, in that case, a bit strange.

We have also set a target for capacity, and several heavy hitters argue that we need approximately ten gigawatts of dispatchable power to complement much weather-dependent power. We have an answer there. But for the government, it is unclear if they even want more energy here and now, and above all, there is no target to obtain more capacity that solves just such situations as we see today. That is what Birger Lahti is getting at, namely that there is no functioning price model for just such extreme situations. I believe we agree on pressing Germany to divide the country into electricity price areas, just as Sweden has done.

Until then, we think it is time to investigate an electricity price cap. I have asked Ebba Busch if this is something the Kristdemokraterna are open to, but I received no answer. Therefore, I take the opportunity to ask Camilla Brodin if the Kristdemokraterna are open to something such as that. It is not true that there is a power shortage. I just checked Svenska kraftnät's website; we are exporting 190 megawatts. It is not the power that is the problem, but rather the pricing. Since the industry needs more electricity, it is the power grids that need to be expanded faster.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member again for a good argument. I think we are absolutely in agreement on certain parts, including more efficiency. It feels very good that the Green Party is also on board with this.

We need to find a consensus on energy policy so that we can also meet the needs that Sweden has. We all agree that electricity prices are far too high in southern Sweden. The entire industry is at a standstill. Citizens are, with full right, furious about the high electricity prices. We can always say: What was it we said? But that does not help here and now.

We must take the issues seriously and look at what the government is doing now. Last year, we lowered the tax so that we will all have a bit more means, because we are in a situation where it is not so simple to clean up the mess that Miljöpartiet has contributed to.

An average household received 14,000 kronor in reduced tax last year. This year, we are also presenting a budget where an average family receives 5,000 kronor in lower tax. Let us look at the indexation for the energy tax; for a villa, it would increase by 300 kronor per year, and for an apartment, 70 kronor per year. I still think we are trying to offset the large cost increases by lowering by many hundreds of percent more than the actual cost.

However, we need to take responsibility for lowering electricity prices in the longer term, and we do that with predictable baseload power in southern Sweden.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Yesterday, if you were unlucky, it cost over 30 kronor to take a shower in Malmö. Today, it does not look much better. Electricity prices are soaring in southern Sweden. Some of this is due to low electricity production in Germany, but the fact is that with the right measures, the high prices in southern Sweden could have been avoided. It is precisely such measures that the government has dismantled or gone against with surgical precision.

During the election campaign, all the Tidö parties promised to lower the electricity tax. Instead, it has been increased every year. Ebba Busch stood and hugged a vacuum cleaner. After she became the new energy minister, electricity production in the short term has both been mocked and undermined.

The Tidögänget talked about how expensive it was to be Swedish, instead of helping people to increase energy efficiency and lower their electricity bills. Yes, they have removed the entire goal of energy efficiency. It is not strange that it becomes expensive. The government has effectively ensured that it becomes expensive. How else are they going to justify their hundreds of billions for nuclear power and the extra tax that will be placed on people's electricity bills and which will be paid until Ebba Busch's 90th birthday?

It is almost Christmas, and then the same Christmas songs are played over and over again. The government seems to have taken a bit of inspiration from this, because it sounds like a broken record that has gotten stuck. It has gotten stuck in a loop - to speak West Swedish. All problems are due to decommissioned nuclear power. All problems shall be solved with nuclear power, whatever the cost may be. People talk about the laws of physics, and we have heard that in several exchanges here. But apparently, other physical laws prevail in the government departments than in the rest of society. Both Svenska kraftnät and Energimyndigheten have both scenarios and proposals that rhyme very well with the Centerpartiets and several other parties' policies.

The physical law that the government seems to have forgotten is time, that is, the time it takes to build new nuclear power. In the best-case scenario, it will be in place in 15 years. That is, another 15 winters with these electricity prices. To only have nuclear power as an answer is to condemn the Swedish people to high electricity prices well into the 2040s.

Fortunately, there are alternatives. In the Center Party's budget, which we are debating today, there is a reduced electricity tax. Today, we have given the other parties the opportunity to lower the electricity tax in relation to the government's budget in a committee initiative in the Finance Committee. We have heard the Sweden Democrats talk about this during the day. We have previously heard the Christian Democrats and the Liberals talk about this during the day. Is one now prepared to truly support this, or are they just empty words – and one continues to raise the tax?

Up to proof! It is possible, and the Committee on Finance is dealing with the issue.

In the Center Party's budget, there is also a focus on electricity production in the near term, for example, a crisis commission for increased electricity production. The property tax on energy production should, instead of landing in the state's black hole and in the best case being distributed from there, remain in the municipalities. It will result in more teachers, nursing assistants, a new chip on the electric light track, or perhaps even a lowered municipal tax.

In our budget, the government's tax increase on solar cells is stopped, and the offshore wind power is expanded. Electricity production increases in the near term. What Camilla Brodin forgot to say is that Energiforsk has pointed out that if the offshore wind power had been expanded, electricity prices would have been lowered. Do you know what? If we had increased energy efficiency by 5 percent, we would have lowered the prices even more than if we had used their nuclear reactors, which were old and worn out and were to be decommissioned.

In the Center Party's budget, we also highlight the importance of the right investments from the state's side. People should be helped out of problems, and energy efficiency should be supported. This helps not only this winter but also all coming winters. The clever thing is that it does not only help the electricity households' own electricity bills, but with more electricity, prices are lowered, as Energiforsk has shown, and everyone gets cheaper electricity. It is win-win. It is also very profitable from a socio-economic perspective. For the extra money, perhaps one can buy a slightly better Christmas present, or why not start a savings plan now when the ISK tax is so much-needed lowered.

In the Centre Party, we see the need to protect people from monopoly-like situations. The electricity grid regulation needs to be reviewed and become more efficient. It is not reasonable that one earns more money as a grid company the more expensive solutions one has. Then the grid prices will continue to skyrocket, just as this government allows them to do.

Can we get more focus on energy communities, which can also avoid paying so much grid fees. But it is not only the grids that are a monopoly. District heating is also almost a monopoly. Here, decisive action and some support are needed. The transparency from the companies in the pricing needs to be strengthened, especially when we know that several companies have been kicked out of the price dialogue. Then the industry needs to take a moment to think about how to do this for real, otherwise politics will have to step in and regulate.

District heating is at the same time incredibly important because it relieves the electricity system during the cold days. Here we need to help so that it gets better conditions and greater competitiveness, not least considering the tough situation with increased biofuel prices. What is also interesting is that there is an enormous potential in combined heat and power. It is a potential that exists in existing plants and that could be realized at a very low cost - we are talking about a few billion compared to the government's hundreds of billions - and furthermore provide power very quickly.

Is the effect that the government is looking for, then, the combined heat and power? Hydroelectric power, moreover, has enormous potential, and these things can be implemented in half the time and at a quarter of the cost. Why is the focus not on that – on things that make a difference here and now?

I certainly have nothing against nuclear power. Those who want to expand it at existing sites are welcome to do so! But I am not prepared to burden today's and future generations' taxpayers with a doubled national debt, which is what the government's proposal would lead to. They haven't even conducted a proper impact assessment, and I have probably never heard a proposal be so heavily criticized during the referral process. It has been criticized by authorities, by electricity market analysts, by the industry - yes, virtually everyone has criticized the proposal that the government put forward. Now it is time to redo it and do it right.

The green transition is, in fact, an opportunity for Sweden. The government seems to believe that it is some kind of green varnish, which makes it matter less and that it is not so important to lead the way. But nothing could be more wrong. The world is transitioning, and the business sector has understood that. The business sector is not Sweden-sentimental; if we do not support the business sector, it will move. With the right conditions, we can sell climate solutions to the rest of the world, but otherwise, others will sell to us instead. Then we do not only lose in competitiveness, but we also lose jobs and entrepreneurship.

Despite this, the government wants to do as little as possible. The fact is that we are not even reaching our own, too low, climate goals. What the government does not seem to understand is that climate exports are then turned into imports and that the jobs in that case move. A strong climate policy is a strong industrial policy, and in that case, a strong energy policy is needed.

It is also security policy, because when we stop importing fossil fuels from rogue states, we strengthen our total defense. Therefore, the Armed Forces must also be part of the solution, just as in our neighboring countries, and then the government cannot use the Armed Forces as an excuse to say no to new electricity production.

The government can also not continue to neglect the consequences of the reassessment of hydropower. The pause that has been decided upon – which the Center Party proposed and had passed after a committee initiative in the Riksdag and which the Tidö government then, one must say, profitably picked up – has been much needed. The problem is that it has not been taken advantage of.

If you listen to the referral response, you hear that the large-scale ones are the only ones who are satisfied, while the small-scale ones instead get a worse situation. Furthermore, the environmental movement is absolutely furious. One has thus succeeded in doing exactly the opposite of what one intended to do. I heard Ebba Busch say that she would resign if the situation for small-scale hydropower was not resolved, so I look forward to her soon making her position available. This, in fact, solves no problems.

I was in Ockelbo in Gävle on Friday and met everyone involved, from the business owners and the village association to the Älvräddarna, and everyone agreed that the government is missing the mark. It was also clear that everyone wants the state to take greater responsibility when it comes to environmental inventories, consultations, and actual investigations on-site, as well as acting with a bit more tact. There are solutions that everyone can agree on and be satisfied with, but that is not what the government is delivering.

Madam Speaker! It is almost Christmas, so I thought I would nevertheless conclude with some praise. There is one thing in this budget that the government has done well, but it concerns a budget item that is spoken of rather quietly. It is the budget item that focuses on capacity and flexibility. I would have wished that it were larger and that more weight were placed on it, but it is precisely this that is needed. These measures can make a big difference in the system and need to receive significantly more love from politics, not just in the budget but also in the regulatory frameworks otherwise.

It is my wish to the government ahead of the new year: Listen to what Energimarknadsinspektionen has said! Take advantage of Power Circles' ideas, and make the adjustments that are needed to unleash the potential in smart steering - in flexibility. Include it in the green deduction so that one can do it at home oneself! It would make a real difference.

We have, in fact, a duty to solve this together. The Centre Party has done it many times before, and I am ready to come to the negotiating table any day. The business community wants it, and the households want it. We need it for the households, for the companies, for the climate, and for Sweden.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! It is known that I think Rickard Nordin is very skilled in the area of energy supply, and I could actually sign off on everything that Rickard said. However, I wonder about one thing.

As I told Fredrik Olovsson, we have had the Riksdag's investigation service look into what is called the Beken model, which we have renamed to Sverigepriser. The answer we received was vague; it would probably - presumably - conflict with the free movement of goods and services. Does the Center Party and Rickard Nordin see any problem with investigating what this would entail? Many are saying that it would not mean any obstacle to exporting the same amount of electricity and that we would be in solidarity with other countries in Europe that have a different pricing model.

Does the Centre Party see any possibilities at all to investigate this?

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Birger Lahti for the praise. We often have a very good cooperation with many parties in these issues, and we stand very close to Vänsterpartiet in energy issues. It is always pleasant.

Here we may differ slightly, as my focus is on making a difference in reality. I believe that bureaucratic changes take time and energy away from what would actually make a difference.

Even if we changed things around and, against all odds, it were possible to introduce the model with Swedish prices, it would take quite a long time. A lot of effort and resources would need to be put into negotiations down in Brussels without us getting a single additional kilowatt-hour. We know that, in addition to this, we would still need to expand the energy system. We would need to improve energy efficiency, and for that part, we could also gladly lower the electricity tax. In that case, it is better that we focus there, because that lowers prices permanently, which is not the case if we try to fix and tinker with different divisions.

The big problem is that Germany has not introduced electricity price zones, and there I believe that Birger Lahti and I agree that the government is far too weak. People talk about how it is important to solve this in Germany. But the Danes sued Sweden so that we would introduce electricity zones, so now it is probably time that we sue the hell out of the Germans so that they are forced to do it! Because it is this that is the big problem; it is why we have high electricity prices in Skåne. Germany has not introduced electricity zones, and their high prices spill over to us. They would not do that if Germany had electricity zones.

I think it is the bureaucratic solution, except that we build more, rather than trying to negotiate how free movement works at the EU level.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Rickard, for the answer!

The only thing I do not agree with in your reasoning is that it would only be a short-term solution. If one changed the ordinance and how we price the export element, it is clear that it would remain. But I agree that we simultaneously must work on all the other pieces of the puzzle, and we agree that we must expand. The industry demands it – you expressed very well how the industry is at the starting blocks and wants to do the right thing – and the politics is not keeping up.

I agree that the government is passive regarding Germany. But as far as the price zones are concerned, we see what is happening in Swedish price zones: We have price zones, and yet there is now an 8,000 percent difference in price. It is clear that we would get closer to the goal if the Germans also had price zones, but that would not solve the entire problem. We would still be infected by their deficit.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Birger Lahti is right that it is not a short-term solution - perhaps especially because it, I believe, would take quite a long time if we were able to implement it. It would therefore rather be a solution that would come in about ten years, if we even succeeded. Precisely for that reason, I believe it is the wrong focus to have - especially when it is so uncertain whether it is even possible.

However, we are in complete agreement on the unreasonable prices and the government's passivity, but I perhaps find it a bit exciting that Birger Lahti says he can sign off on every word I said. I don't know, but regarding the electricity tax, maybe we have slightly different views. I would, however, very much like to see us lower the electricity tax together in some way. Vänsterpartiet is very welcome to join the committee initiative in the Finance Committee if that is the case, because the situation we have now—and there I believe we are in complete agreement—is completely unreasonable. There is a higher tax on pure electricity than on fossil diesel.

The government has lost its way completely in climate and energy policy. It is not strange that emissions are increasing and that we are sliding down in rankings that measure climate emissions. What we have not slid down in are the international rankings of the electricity system. Sweden is still ranked at the top in international comparisons of the electricity system. That is not always how it sounds in this chamber, but it is a fact. And very often, facts are missing in this debate.

I would have liked to see more connection to research, investigations, and international comparisons. Then I believe that the policy that I myself, and in many parts also Birger Lahti, would favor would get more space.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! Just as many speakers have already stated, electricity prices in southern Sweden are unreasonably high today. It is not a situation that is sustainable, reasonable, or fair, if one wants to use that word.

I believe that many of us intuitively feel that something is wrong when there are such high prices and such large differences within the same country. It is not reasonable to have such large price differences within Sweden. Today, it is primarily expensive for those who live in southern Sweden, but tomorrow the cost will be shared by the entire country, as the majority of Swedish business is located in electricity price areas 3 and 4. If prices soar there, as they do now, it will be noticed across the whole country when food becomes more expensive and the price of goods rises.

Madam Speaker! I know that there are people in this chamber who think the solution is a form of electricity nationalism with reduced trade. I believe that is a mistake. It is not international trade with energy that is the problem, but rather that we on our own have divided Sweden into electricity price areas. The Liberals' position has been clear: We need to have Sweden as one electricity price area. It is not reasonable for the electricity price to vary so much depending on where in the country one lives.

What is also not reasonable is what has been mentioned here earlier: Germany's decision to shut down its nuclear power but continue to have all of Germany as a single electricity price area. We are now seeing this have consequences for southern Sweden. It can be said, somewhat hyperbolically, that Germany is dumping the consequences of its failed energy policy on Skåne and southern Sweden.

We can look at the history. Sweden introduced its current four electricity price areas in 2011. This occurred after Dansk Energi had reported Svenska kraftnät to the EU Commission. The report was based on the fact that Svenska kraftnät periodically restricted the export of electricity to Denmark to avoid electricity shortages in the southern parts of Sweden. That they did so was due to the fact that Svenska kraftnät had a lack of capacity to handle bottlenecks, which was a direct result of the political decision to shut down the nuclear reactors in Barsebäck.

In order to be able to manage the situation and stop limiting the export volumes, Svenska Kraftnät decided on its own initiative to introduce four electricity price areas in Sweden.

Now we have the same problem between Germany and Sweden. Germany produces large parts of its electricity in the northern part of the country, but the majority of the consumption occurs in southern Germany. Furthermore, since Germany has decommissioned several of its nuclear power plants, large parts of the country's electricity production is based on weather-dependent wind power. Collectively, this has led to southern Sweden being affected by prices that should actually occur in a Germany that is divided into electricity price areas. It is complex.

The consequence for us in Sweden has been that all Swedes south of the Dalälven pay significantly more for electricity than they should and that Swedish industry loses in competitiveness. It is not reasonable.

Madam Speaker! That we connect Europe's power grids is good. It means that we can sell surpluses to other countries when they have increased needs and buy capacity when we need it. Both Sweden and Germany also have a journey to make in expanding electricity production. But before this is done and for all countries to receive their own incentives to increase their electricity production, the European electricity market must be fair and be built on the same logic.

The Liberals will act on all fronts to achieve more reasonable electricity prices for households and companies. When properly designed, the interconnected European electricity market is a key to this.

Madam Speaker! Regarding the production of energy, this government has changed the direction of the energy policy since it took office. The goal has been to increase the production of fossil-free energy at competitive prices.

Thanks to the completely decisive decisions we have made in the energy area since the new government took office, we are now equipped to tackle the historical shift that electrification and the green transition entail. The most important thing is, of course, the decision on new nuclear power. The ban on new nuclear reactors has been removed, and it has become permitted to establish nuclear power plants in new locations. The government has also put forward proposals on how this nuclear power shall be financed. It is a debate that we have had and that will continue. But now there is something to discuss.

This is probably the single most important thing Sweden can do to live up to its commitments in the global climate work: that we move from fossil to fossil-free energy sources in Sweden. Here, nuclear power is absolutely crucial. It is not possible to quickly transition energy production while maintaining delivery and operational security goals in any other way. Today's sky-high electricity prices are what happens if you remove this type of stable and weather-independent production without having an alternative solution.

With this said, we have a major mission to also expand energy production in the shorter perspective. The 50 proposals that have been referred to here earlier are a step on that path. We will need to do a lot moving forward.

With this, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Louise Eklund, for the speech! The member mentions reduced trade and electricity nationalism. I wonder which party she means by that. I must have an answer to that. What does Louise Eklund mean by reduced trade and electricity nationalism?

We know that there is a push to achieve a European common electricity market with the same prices. The high electricity prices we see today are due to the fact that we have a dysfunctional pricing model. We can trade electricity and export when we have a surplus. But does Louise Eklund think that the current pricing model works well and benefits Swedish consumers and Swedish industry?

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! I perceive that for most who follow the energy debate, it is very clear that there are parties who, when prices rise and we have a trade, think it is a reasonable proposal to limit trade with the outside and look at the Swedish electricity consumers. We have seen that in the last few days. We have seen it over time as well.

It could be about wanting to limit trade or about wanting to make regulations that are beneficial for Swedish electricity customers, and there is a very nationalistic rhetoric in this. I perceive that several parties on the left take that type of rhetorical device when electricity prices in Sweden rise.

I thought that in my speech I was quite clear that the situation we have now, with enormously large price differences between different parts of the country, is not reasonable. It is not reasonable, just as the member himself very profitably pointed out in his speech, because it tears the country apart when there are such large variations in what it costs to live and reside depending on where in the country one has chosen to settle. I thought that I was very clear that this is a situation that neither I nor the Liberals think is reasonable.

We are now looking at how we can address precisely the price differences, partly by looking at our own electricity price areas, and partly by beginning to question the lack of electricity price area division that Germany has.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Louise Eklund, for the answer! There is a model called the Becken model, which the Left Party promotes as Sverigepriser. It is a pricing model that would mean that one first prices the demand and supply of electricity for Swedish consumers. What becomes a surplus is exported, just as it is today. There would be no difference when it comes to how we export. It is not electricity nationalism. But it would be a reasonable pricing for Sweden's own produced electricity.

In northern Sweden, from the Dalälven and upwards, a lot of wind power has been built. This leads to that there are now unreasonable variations. I agree with everyone who has said that it is not reasonable that I can buy a product for 11 öre and that the people in Skåne pay 8 kronor or 3.50 for the same product. It is not reasonable.

Still, the coastal towns and coastal resorts continue to say no to wind power, which in just a few years would mean more production and more power, even though some claim that there is no power. They are saying no, then. What is the logic in saying no to another price model and to increased wind power production? Everything—once again—from the Tidö parties is spelled out as nuclear power. It does not hold up.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! As I understood the response from the member here, the wording was almost verbatim: to use pricing to favor Swedish consumers. I believe we are talking past each other here. For me, it is quite obvious that it is a form of electricity nationalism, but obviously, we disagree on that.

Regarding production, nuclear power is absolutely important, because it is predictable and helps on days like these when there are high electricity prices in southern Sweden. As has been said here several times before, more wind in the system would not have helped today. It would not have made a difference for the price.

It is surprising that one continues to present wind power as a proposal. It is needed. Liberals have been clear about this all the time. We want a mix. We think that wind power is very important, but a day like today it would not have helped.

I also think that this needs to be clarified: What has caused us to stand without offshore wind power today is not that the coastal municipalities in Skåne are saying no. It is that the defense has seen it as a security threat. It is a changed geopolitical situation. Russia has invaded Ukraine. We need to take this into account in our energy policy as well. This is what lies behind the decision, not what the Skåne coastal municipalities say.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Those who voted for the Tidö parties so that electricity prices would be lower probably feel quite deceived today. We are now seeing the consequences of the government's failed energy policy in southern Sweden.

Under Ebba Busch's leadership, the pace of expansion regarding fossil-free electricity production in the near term has decreased, when it in fact would need to increase significantly to meet the future need for much more sustainably produced electricity.

The reason why Timbro's CEO PM Nilsson designated Miljöpartiet as Sweden's only energy realists is probably not that he has become a member of Miljöpartiet, but he probably had no other choice. I see it as an appeal to the bourgeoisie to exercise restraint, take off the ideological blinkers, and base their policy on reality and on facts.

For the Tidö parties, energy policy seems above all to be a culture war against cheap electricity. They do everything to stop more power production in the near term. They have stopped important measures for energy efficiency, and they are doing entirely insufficiently to achieve more dispatchable power.

It was also completely the wrong time to introduce the new model for transmission, the so-called flow-based pricing, when no measures have been taken to ensure that electricity prices do not spiral out of control. It is incredibly irresponsible of both Ebba Busch and Ulf Kristersson. It was really bad timing. Furthermore, the electricity tax has been raised twice during the mandate period. But above all, they have stopped the expansion of more power production in the near term.

The local parties stop the majority of onshore wind power that could be commissioned before 2030. They stop between 70 and 100 percent with the municipal veto when they get the chance. This has stopped approximately 100 terawatt-hours in new production.

It is good that a compensation has finally been moved forward. It is something that Miljöpartiet has long pushed for – a compensation to municipalities and neighbors. But the fact remains: Many municipal politicians have already promised their voters to say no to wind power, not least because of the culture war that Ebba Busch has waged against wind power.

Recently, the government also laid a dead hand over all offshore wind power in the entire Baltic Sea without having tried to find a solution where one balances the energy interest and the defense interest. The energy interest is, moreover, a form of defense interest or a preparedness interest. We need more energy production in Sweden to secure the supply.

It does not look any better than that it seems that tomorrow you will lay a dead hand over the rest of the offshore wind power for the next ten years by not appearing to present a sensible transition solution regarding the system that you yourself advocated for and now call a chaos system. You advocated for it yourself when you made the energy agreement, when, among others, Miljöpartiet advocated for a more orderly process, which you now seem to want to transition to. The problem is that it will delay the expansion by an additional ten years if you do not have any sensible transition solution.

Deteriorations have been introduced for solar energy. They are removing the so-called 60-öre next year – something that all homeowners and others who have invested in solar, and who are micro-producers, have accounted for in their investment. They have made a contribution to Sweden's electricity production and for the environment, and so they are to be punished for it by this government.

It is also really bad timing to lower the green deduction when the market is faltering and we would need to achieve more electricity production.

All previous support for energy efficiency has been abolished. Furthermore, an investigation into establishing long-term support for energy efficiency was killed. This could have released 25 terawatt-hours of electricity as early as 2030. This is, therefore, the potential for a profitable energy efficiency. Then there is also the question: What would it have done to the prices?

Yes, analyses have shown that if we improve efficiency by 10 percent, electricity prices could fall by as much as 50 percent. That would probably have made everyone in southern Sweden quite happy today. But the government has not provided that possibility. An efficiency of 25 terawatt-hours would therefore correspond to a 20 percent efficiency on the total. It would have a significant effect on electricity prices to actually stimulate energy efficiency. But instead, the goal for energy efficiency has been torn up.

To make matters worse, a proposal for the financing of nuclear power is put forward, which is even being criticized by nuclear power advocates. The main criticism is that this places a dead hand over all electricity production that can occur in the near term. It is because it creates great uncertainty in the market that one wants to subsidize a specific type of power.

If one introduces this, it also risks competing out the remaining existing nuclear power, which has the highest marginal costs. In that case, one has won nothing in the end.

It is incredibly strange that one is not able to think further and look at the system effects.

Since then, it is the case that we need to wait for approximately 20 years if one were to build new nuclear power. Would one wait 20 years for cheap electricity? No, I would not believe that.

Quite a few have analyzed what the system cost for ten new reactors would be. The cost spread per household and month corresponds to an additional cost for electricity of approximately 1,000 kronor per month for approximately 40 years. This is to be taken in via a penalty tax - an Ebba Busch tax - on electricity. It is a major failure.

Speaking of nuclear power, we can note that Forsmark 3 has been down since September due to crack formations. The reactor is expected to be back in operation on January 1, so it is not at all the case that one can always rely on nuclear power.

I received a question that I did not have time to answer, but now Camilla Brodin has left. To be clear: No, we do not want to shut down any nuclear power with political decisions, and we have also not shut down any nuclear power with political decisions.

Since it is very true that we need more electricity but also more capacity to achieve stable prices, and then we need more dispatchable power. Here I want to take the opportunity to give some praise to the government, albeit perhaps a bit sparingly. There is a good proposal, the one called Kraftlyftet. The reason I think it is good is that it is a pure copy of the Green Party's policy.

In the previous budget, we had something called Kraftsteget, with exactly the same content. The disadvantage with the proposal now is that it is pure symbol politics, because with 100 million kronor per year we absolutely will not get enough controllable power to remedy such extreme situations as we see in southern Sweden today.

The Green Party has instead proposed a significantly larger investment and set a concrete goal that is in line with what several heavy-weight assessors believe is needed in the form of controllable power, namely 10 gigawatts by 2030, or 2035, which we can reach. It is about more power from hydropower, more power from combined heat and power, pumped power, batteries, flexibility, and expanded energy storage. There I hear that many parties, not least the government parties, have sobered up a bit when they mentioned these investments in their speeches.

Then we definitely need to support combined heat and power. It is an incredibly important type of energy in our energy system. There, we believe that the tax on electricity should be removed so that we, during those periods when we actually have a surplus of electricity and electricity prices are negative, can feed the surplus electricity into combined heat and power instead of curtailing wind power. It can be stored as many have accumulator tanks. This is smarter. In that way, we can lower the prices for district heating customers and also increase the profitability for the district heating companies. It is an incredibly important part of our energy system.

I heard some government representatives mention that one of the government's ambitions with energy policy is to reduce the share of fossil fuels. There, one doesn't really know what to think. The only thing the government is doing is significantly increasing the dependence on fossil fuels. The government's policy has now had an impact on emissions, and we already saw during the first and second quarters of this year that emissions are increasing sharply. There, one simply has to go and do their homework.

Overall, the government's failed energy policy leads to great uncertainties as to whether there will be sufficient fossil-free electricity supply by 2030 and 2035.

There is a lack of a clear plan to increase the availability of dispatchable power and flexibility, and there is a lack of a plan to expand the electricity grids much faster. All the solutions that we want here can you read more about in the Green Party's budget, which unfortunately will not pass this time.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

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

I know that Linus Lakso is very knowledgeable about energy issues, and I have a question. I and Vänsterpartiet submitted a committee initiative once to try to push to tell the EU that we intend to price Swedish demand with a different price model, but not even Miljöpartiet supported my proposal then.

What is it that makes Miljöpartiet see no use in having a different pricing model that would make us price export electricity approximately as in a fifth electricity price area? Why does Miljöpartiet not see it as a solution?

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Birger Lahti, for a good question!

I am actually making the same analysis - that the price models do not work very well, especially not in such extreme situations as we see in Skåne and also in SE3 and SE4 today. Generally, the so-called energy-only market works well, but here we probably need to see if something needs to be done.

I have actually analyzed the Left Party's proposal carefully. We would have gladly supported it in some way, at least when it comes to finding a new model, if I had believed that it would have been feasible.

If one were to place different bids on a national market and an export market, everyone will still want to place a bid on the export market to set the export price for their electricity. Everyone will bid on that market where the price is higher. Who should one then force to place a lower bid?

I have great sympathy regarding the problem. I just don't see how exactly this proposal would work. On the other hand, we think that perhaps one should investigate a price cap for electricity to avoid extreme situations, because there I do not think the market works well given how it is spiraling out of control in Skåne today.

Generally, there is a huge amount we can do to avoid extreme situations, but in that, the government has failed miserably. A price cap is something that we are prepared to investigate in order to avoid such situations.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Linus Lakso, for the answer!

If someone were to attempt price manipulation, we have an authority that would ensure this could not continue for any longer period. I accept that, but that one didn't even dare to give a mandate to investigate how it would work, I find strange.

Otherwise, I agree that the government is doing nothing to try to curb the whole thing. Just as Linus Lakso himself mentions, in the situation we are currently in, it is clearly the pricing model and the marginal pricing that is making it so insane.

I want to reiterate that I can accept that gold and minerals are priced on a market out there in the world with this model, but that it has become such a market chaos for a socially important function as electricity is very strange.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! I do not have much more to say on this specific issue. I agree with the problem description, but I think that perhaps one should investigate it.

We have spoken in the committee about the government wanting to extend the power reserve, however without converting it to fossil-free electricity. It is very strange. We want it to be converted so that it runs on fossil-free electricity. Then one could have considered perhaps setting a price cap for when the power reserve should kick in.

We want to see an investment support for what we call green base load, in order to get more power. There, one could imagine a counter-requirement – that the one who receives an investment support shall step in and push down the electricity price when it becomes too high.

I believe that there may be models that correct the error or the misfortune that arises when such extreme prices occur. It is about working long-term with more electricity production and more dispatchable power on the market, but perhaps a price cap on electricity is also actually needed to avoid the extremes.

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

Josef Fransson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating energy policy in connection with the state budget's expenditure area 21 Energy. I move for the approval of the committee's proposal in its entirety. This concerns, in particular, that during 2025 the government may issue credit guarantees for loans for investments in new nuclear power with a sum of 400 billion kronor. I consider this to be good. It is of the utmost importance that we start building new nuclear power as soon as possible. This is shown, in particular, by the electricity price variations. Yesterday, in southern Sweden, electricity prices were 20,000 percent higher than in northern Sweden. Today we have a broken energy system that must be repaired, and market forces cannot solve it. In that case, we politicians must step in.

This week, the responses from the referral bodies to the memorandum Financing and risk sharing in investments in new nuclear power were published. In the memorandum, it is proposed, among other things, that nuclear power should receive a guaranteed revenue of 80 öre per delivered kilowatt-hour. This can be discussed. It may not be exactly that in a final product.

Some of the referral bodies write in a problematizing manner regarding this. For example, Svenska kraftnät, which is responsible for the balancing of the entire power grid, is concerned that this will reduce the willingness to invest in other power production. I have received confirmation that it is solar and wind power they refer to in this context. It is a peculiar position from Svenska kraftnät, if you ask me. We stand where we stand today because we, with the help of subsidies, have pushed wind power into the system and destroyed both the energy system's functionality and the electricity market.

Predictable base power in the south is absolutely crucial for us to get the system in order again. In that case, only two realistic power types exist. They are gas turbines and nuclear power, and nuclear power will not be built if we do not have a clear model where the state shares the risk with the investors. It is that simple.

Madam Speaker! When one hears certain people express themselves on the issue, it is as if it has been erased from the collective memory of the people that only a couple of decades ago we had the world's best, cheapest, cleanest, and most stable energy system, with nuclear power as the base load in the south and hydropower in the north, which also functioned as regulating power for the entire kingdom. The system could provide our heavy industry with a clear competitive advantage so that we could export goods and build prosperity.

Then Maud Olofsson came and said that this stool needed three legs, and the rest is history. Today, companies have to queue for power allocation, and the missed investments within the industry are estimated to be around 80 billion kronor per year.

This is however only part of the societal costs that the power shortage we are now seeing entails. Increased costs for grid stabilization amount to approximately 7 billion per year. To this can also be added direct investments in the transmission grid for electricity transmission that have been forced by previous investments in, among other things, wind power. Here we are talking about an additional number of billions annually.

Overall, it is rather the case that Sweden cannot afford not to build nuclear power. One may have views on the state support, but the alternative, that we do not build nuclear power at all, becomes far much more expensive than a worst-case scenario with the support model that is currently being discussed.

In this context, I would like to point out to previous debaters today that some things will happen with gas turbines in the coming years that will alleviate but absolutely not solve the problem. Öresundsverket is underway and will start up again in 2025. It will alleviate particularly such situations as the one we are in today.

Madam Speaker! I must say that it is interesting and fascinating to witness the Social Democrats' shameless historical revisionism. I am thinking primarily of Magdalena Andersson in various media, but also of what has been said here in the chamber today. They refuse to take responsibility and are now pretending that the high electricity prices are linked to the introduction of a flow-based capacity calculation model, or so-called flowbase.

It is hardly even possible to say in which direction the new system affects electricity prices. Perhaps one can sort that out in retrospect. No, Socialdemokraterna, the high electricity prices are due to the fact that Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet with full courage forced four nuclear reactors to close between 2015 and 2020. In figures, this means a loss of power in southern Sweden of approximately 3,000 megawatts and a lost transmission capacity from northern Sweden of approximately 1,500 megawatts. It is therefore a loss of 4,500 megawatts, which can be put into relation to the fact that Skåne and electricity area 4 today have a net import of 2,700 megawatts.

Now the Social Democrats do not want to pretend about this. I think it is shameless, as shameless as only a sosse can act.

It is also worth pointing out in this context that for some inscrutable reason, the reactors in Ringhals were destroyed in a way that more or less made a restart impossible. We wanted, as said, to restart Ringhals 1, above all, after the 2022 election. I have spoken with experts in the industry who say that this is a very remarkable procedure that can hardly be explained in any other way than that it was a political commissioned job. They tore out important components from the nuclear power plant and poured acid into tanks and pipes. Given the damage Sweden has suffered from this, it can almost be described as evil. It is outrageous.

I will rest there for today and wish the members of the Swedish Riksdag and Madam Speaker a Merry Christmas.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! I see the joy in my colleagues' eyes that they would like me to exceed my speaking time, but I do not intend to do that. I naturally intend to stick to the four minutes I have.

I also want to mention that I had to withdraw myself from the speaking list earlier because I had to go and discuss the small topic of electricity prices in public service. It is also something that sometimes needs to be prioritized.

I primarily wish to vote in favor of the government's proposition. I would, however, still like to say a few words that I feel need to be said.

This is the third year in a row that we have had the opportunity to debate the budget in the energy area based on the Tidö cooperation's policy, a policy which, moreover, in broad consensus within the cooperation, is aimed at handling the problems that were created during a period when technology, physics, technical facts, and natural laws were kicked out of the energy area. The difference between energy and power is still denied in some places, to mention just one example. With a reality-detached and dogmatic ideology, a short-term energy crisis was created, while the foundation for the power system was eroded in the long term.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker: The opposition is dismayed. It is divided. It is difficult to find anything that one actually agrees on. One wants to lower the taxes on combined heat and power, the other wants to tax combined heat and power away again. Some say they want more nuclear power, others say they want to shut down all nuclear power tomorrow. I could have continued for 22 minutes here, but since the Speaker's chair has been clear that it is not relevant, I will not do so. But they are divided, they have no solutions, and they use fake money to finance proposals without any grounding in reality.

But we still have reason to be positive today. Today, this does nothing. The Tidö cooperation has a well-elaborated energy policy that benefits companies and households. That policy will also become a reality because we have a majority in Sweden's Riksdag and will get a majority for our budgets. The Tidö cooperation will get all its budgets through, unlike the previous mandate period when my party sat in opposition and only got every other budget through.

That is why I move for approval of the government's proposition. I would also like to wish all my good colleagues in the Riksdag a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, if SSAB is okay with that.

(Applause)

Energy

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 17 December.)

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