Energy

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Now it is time to debate expenditure area 21 Energy, and I want to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

The Tidö parties have agreed on a budget. The budget we have presented is a cyclical budget that is well-balanced to the needs we see in the economy and contains a historical reform space.

We are in a low-key recession, and in that situation, it is important to ensure that households are given the conditions to spend more. We do this by making it more profitable to work and by lowering the tax and the VAT in several areas. An average family gets approximately 5,000 kronor more per month through, among other things, lowered electricity tax, halved food VAT, and lowered fuel costs.

A comprehensive subsidy reform combined with tax cuts will stimulate the economy. We are creating incentives for more people to move from subsidies to work while we continue the efforts to push back organized crime even further.

Mr. Speaker! It is however energy issues that we shall focus on during the coming hour. As is known, energy issues are prioritized by both the voters and the Tidö parties, and they form the backbone of the common political project that our four parties have devoted themselves to during this mandate period, which is also evident in this budget.

We have worked intensively to change the course of energy policy in Sweden. Previous governments' inconsistency in energy issues, hatred towards nuclear power, enthusiasm for wind power, and a lack of understanding of the energy system's function have resulted in significantly more challenges than necessary.

Swedish prosperity and Swedish welfare have been made possible thanks to our previously so well-functioning energy system. A well-planned electricity system through substantial expansion of hydropower and nuclear power laid the foundation for the economy we see today.

Unfortunately, the politics in recent years have mismanaged and caused this. Ideology and climate hysteria have characterized energy policy instead of physics and competitiveness, which has resulted in maintenance debt in the power grid, volatile electricity prices, impaired delivery capacity, and insufficient power when it was needed most.

Weather-dependent power sources have a role to play in our electricity system, but they have been expanded too quickly. Without sufficient base load, balancing power, storage, and electricity grids, problems have arisen.

We are now trying to rectify all of this both through this budget and through all legislative proposals, regulatory letters, ordinances, etc. that the Tidö parties have delivered in the area.

Mr. Speaker! If I am to focus on what we are debating today, I can mention that with next year's budget, we are, among other things, lowering the electricity tax. It is the first time this has happened in decades. We are lowering it by 10 öre per kilowatt-hour. At the same time, we are establishing a high-cost protection for high electricity prices. This means that if the average monthly price for electricity exceeds 1.50 kronor per kilowatt-hour, one is automatically compensated, without complicated forms, for the difference that exceeds 1.50 kronor per kilowatt-hour.

At the same time, we focus on what we can do here and now to facilitate the electricity system by allocating an additional 250 million kronor to Kraftlyftet to support investments in electricity grids, energy storage, and electricity production.

At the same time as we have handled this report in the committee, one should also mention the fact that the Tidö parties have now ensured that Svenska kraftnät carries out a new procurement of strategic reserve that can be in place by the middle of January. This is something that was seen as doomed a few weeks ago.

What has perhaps received the most space in the media, however, is that we have included the state risk-sharing for investments in new nuclear power in the budget by having the National Debt Office receive loans in accordance with the Act on State Aid for Investments in New Nuclear Power. A risk reserve will be in place for any increased costs for nuclear power projects. Compensation for two-way difference contracts for new nuclear reactors is also found in the budget.

This work has been debated extensively. All eight parties present in this chamber had several meetings at the Government Offices during the spring together to talk about this and much more. We have been able to follow a debate in the media about so-called energy policy negotiations – even if I perhaps mostly assessed it as conversations. It is clear that there has been an ambition to ensure broad support for the energy policy realignment that occurs with this budget.

I feel that we have come a good way. The parties agree more similarly on energy issues today than they did just a few weeks ago, and even more similarly than they did a couple of years ago. These proposals will also receive broad support in the chamber when we vote on them next week, because even the Social Democrats are standing behind the figures for risk-sharing in investments in new nuclear power.

Is there then no intrinsic value in having an energy policy agreement, Mr. Speaker? I believe there can be a great value in that. Above all, there is a great value in that we continue to hammer out the arguments in this area and try to seek as broad support as possible for the measures that are presented and implemented.

I do not think that one can look specifically at an agreement, as they tend not to last so long and are probably only worth something during the time they are valid. But that we are looking for instruments to cooperate over time in these issues, I think is important and something that the Tidö parties will continue to look at.

Those who want a broad energy policy agreement on all energy policy often also want it to go quickly in energy policy. This is a contradiction, I try to assert firmly. One cannot both want the policy to be in agreement on everything and at the same time think that the policy needs to do everything faster. Those things are in direct conflict with each other.

I think that the years in which we have governed Sweden have been characterized by a high pace in energy issues. It is a pace that we would never have come close to if all parties had needed to be in agreement before we did anything. This becomes very clear with this expenditure area.

The Tidö parties are in agreement on energy policy. We have been for a long time, and there is nothing to suggest that we would fail to be so in the future. When one looks, however, at the different budgets from the four opposition parties, it can be noted that the Social Democrats add 100 million kronor to this expenditure area. Vänsterpartiet removes 1 billion kronor from the expenditure area. Centerpartiet adds 583 million kronor to the expenditure area, and Miljöpartiet adds approximately 12.5 billion more to the expenditure area.

This means that the difference between the opposition party that invests the least and the opposition party that invests the most on expenditure area 21 for energy almost corresponds to double the total sum for the expenditure area in the state budget. It is also a fact that most opposition parties have more in common with the Tidö parties' energy policy than they have with each other – if one starts from their motions linked to expenditure area 21.

No one knows what energy policy one will get if the Tidö parties do not receive a renewed mandate on election day. There is, therefore, a difference of over 13 billion between the four opposition parties' initiatives in expenditure area 21.

I would like to wish good luck, Mr. Speaker, to the one who is to explain to a voter what it boils down to if one is to coordinate the energy policy after the election. No one in the opposition can do it – neither in this chamber nor in the election campaign – and even less when it comes to the actual situation.

I therefore consider it important that we continue to receive confidence to deliver responsible proposals within both this area and others and to secure a sound energy policy, for that is something Sweden needs more than it has in a long time.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Tobias Andersson for the contribution! It was interesting.

I shall begin in the same way as the member did, namely with the broader issues surrounding the budget. Since it was raised here, I think it is appropriate to say that when the Riksdag's investigation service compares the different budget options against each other, the budget that I represent, i.e., the Social Democrats', will be better for nine out of ten Swedes than the one that Tobias Andersson votes through.

So, there will be more money in the wallet, because we ensure that there are fair tax cuts and not mostly for those who already have it the best. We also ensure that we increase the child allowance – as all other Nordic countries have done – and that we have cheaper medicines. This is especially important for many elderly people, but the Sverigedemokraterna have made it more expensive. We also think that the quarantine deduction should be abolished.

When it comes to the electricity tax, I would like to say that we are part of its reduction. It is being reduced from the level it has today to the level it was at in 2022 – when not least the Sweden Democrats thought it was far too high. Now, they want praise for reintroducing the level that Mikael Damberg stood for.

It is in itself very good that the high-cost protection is included in the government's budget, but we still do not know what it is going to look like. A decree was promised in the autumn, but it has still not been presented. It should also be said that it concerns Kraftlyftet, which is absolutely excellent policy. There we see that not a single krona of this year's budget is paid out – not a single krona to any measure whatsoever is paid out.

The question is really why what Tobias Andersson stands and talks about in the speaker's chair does not happen in reality.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I appreciate the praise that came from Fredrik Olovsson in his reply and the fact that we today think more alike than we did a few years ago – or actually just a few months ago, when the Social Democrats shifted regarding the state support for risk-sharing in new nuclear power investments.

It must however be stated that those who primarily benefit from the Social Democrats' budget are those who today live on benefits. It is also a major conscious realignment of the benefit policy from the Tidö parties. The aim now is instead to create incentives for more people to move from benefits to work, become a part of our economy, contribute their services to the labor market, and ensure prosperity and welfare even in the future. It is therefore not strange in itself that we land differently on that issue.

If we had done as the Socialdemokraterna did and chosen not to finance our proposals in the budget, we surely could have given much more to others, but then we would also have ultimately increased the borrowing significantly because the Socialdemokraterna's budget, according to officials at the Ministry of Finance, lacks funding for approximately 50 billion kronor. That is a lot of money. One can promise a lot for that, if it is the case that one does not pay for it oneself.

The car allowance that Fredrik Olovsson mentions is a clear such example. There are estimates that it would cost 40 billion, but the Social Democrats pretend that it is free to shift the cost onto the companies instead. I do not think that is serious politics.

When it comes to reduced electricity tax, I am the first to say that I would have gladly gone harder on this. It is known that the Sverigedemokraterna have pushed that issue even in previous budget negotiations.

The last thing Fredrik Olovsson mentions, regarding exactly how different support regulations turn out in practice, is a strong reason why the Sweden Democrats would want to be part of the next government and be able to gain increased influence in the review of how different supports through agencies and elsewhere are handled and turn out in practice.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Given precisely the problems that the government has, it is rather an argument for changing to a social democratically led government, which also always ensures that growth is higher, unemployment lower, and public finances stronger. So it would also be the case this time with the budget we have placed on the floor of the Riksdag. Not least, our budget balance is stronger than the Sweden Democrats' and the government's. They are therefore borrowing more money to lower the taxes for those who have it the best.

This is, however, a bit far from the energy debate, it must be said, and time is passing very quickly. I shall therefore return to the question of agreements and on consensus.

Moving quickly was an argument against reaching an agreement. The problem is that the fact that we are not in agreement also means that things move more slowly, that companies do not invest, and that people do not trust that the political system delivers what it says. This is because in one parliamentary term there is a majority that says something, and in the next, another that says something else. If you are to have decade-long perspectives on billions of kronor in an uncertain market, then politics must come together and deliver clear agreements. Does Tobias Andersson not see the value of such an agreement – actually for all types of power?

I also think it is interesting – to conclude with a less confrontational point – that the Sweden Democrats say they are open to some form of energy preparation moving forward. I believe it is absolutely necessary, in order to nurture an agreement on energy policy, that we work together over several parliamentary terms. It is because there are so many major decisions to be made during these years to get many things in place that we need to come together in a completely different way.

But why not an agreement first? Isn't there a great value, not least for the business community, in us being able to make such an agreement? When Ebba Busch speaks about it being party strategists who have ensured that no agreement is reached, I actually think it is Tobias Andersson's strategists that she is thinking of.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Fredrik Olovsson for his second reply.

Olovsson was part of the conversations we had in the spring and has also engaged in dialogue with me in other contexts regarding this. My view is that we in Sverigedemokraterna did what we could to ensure that something was put in place. It is also a theme that we have discussed bilaterally.

With that said, I believe it would have been much easier for the four Tidö parties to reach an agreement with only the Social Democrats. There, as I said in my opening speech, it differs by 100 million kronor. In context, that is a small amount in an expenditure area. In expenditure area 21, it differs by 100 million, if I remember correctly.

But if we are to all agree, the Social Democrats must also include the Green Party and Linus Lakso, who is sitting in here, who wants 13 billion more on this expenditure area. That is, almost double what the entire expenditure area stands at today. Then it will be very difficult, I believe, to reach an agreement.

I would like to see a renewed attempt for the Tidö parties to continue talking with the Social Democrats, and I welcome the opening that comes from the Social Democrats and the fact that they maintain the figures that exist for the state's risk-sharing for nuclear power in their own budget motion. That is great. But I believe we need to realize something: If Fredrik Olovsson's budget today is underfunded by 50 billion and one is to buy Miljöpartiet in a budget negotiation, that budget will be underfunded by almost 63 billion kronor already on day one. Then it becomes very difficult to deliver on the promises one has made.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank Tobias Andersson for the contribution.

Tobias Andersson sounds very satisfied, but I note that the posts are significantly less pompous than they were at the beginning of the mandate period. Perhaps it is because one doesn't have that much to be proud of.

There is much to say about the electricity system as such. One thing I can mention is that we have better grid stability now than before we started expanding wind power, for example.

The power lift was mentioned. It is an initiative copied from the Green Party's policy. We called it Kraftsteget, a major initiative on green base power. It is actually a large part of the billions that Tobias Andersson mentions. We have invested 6 billion on this. It is in high demand by Swedish industry, so it is an initiative that I am very pleased we have.

We have, moreover, sat in government for seven years and negotiated, so we can solve this.

But I have some questions.

How many kilowatts or megawatts has Kraftlyftet generated during this mandate period? Tobias Andersson was very proud of this, of getting more power.

It has been very unclear how many reactors this government is investing in. Is it an SMR, which Vattenfall is actually involved in? Is it two reactors, or is it ten reactors? I would like to have a clarification from Tobias Andersson, as chairman of the Committee on Industry.

Then I do not know if the Tidö parties are so very much in agreement. It appears very divided when it comes to entering into a long-term energy agreement. Miljöpartiet is one of three parties that have entered into and maintained an energy agreement and which in principle still stand behind it.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the contribution and the questions from Linus Lakso.

First and foremost, it must be noted that Kraftlyftet has not been in place during this entire mandate period. Now we are adding more funds to be able to ensure that it delivers for real during 2026.

I believe it is a good instrument. Quite regardless of how similar or different it is from the proposals that Miljöpartiet has had, I believe we can agree that we need to have targeted interventions where the electricity system needs it most. Regardless of whether it means an investment in the grid, production, or storage, it is an important step forward in that direction. I believe we may come to see that it delivers during 2026. I really hope so.

When it comes to exactly how many reactors we should have, for my part, I would like as many as the power system can handle, given the consumption that is needed. But the risk-sharing model that we have presented with this budget is intended to enable the first step in this area. Then we are perhaps talking about power equivalent to two large conventional reactors. But now we know that Vattenfall is looking at three or five, depending on which actor is chosen for the Ringhals site. Linus Lakso is also aware that I personally would have liked to see that one proceeded with large-scale conventional reactors at this site.

I do not know if it is much to boast about today that Miljöpartiet is sticking to an agreement, given that many left it and the result was devastating for our electricity system. I would not be quite as proud of that fact as Linus Lakso is.

With that said, I see the conditions for a continued deepened dialogue in this area. But I can state that I absolutely have no idea how you will put together your energy policy in opposition – if the Tidö parties do not govern Sweden after the next election.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Then I wonder a bit about what Tobias Andersson wants to use the electricity from the reactors for – however many reactors there will be.

Tobias Andersson's colleagues practically laughed here in the chamber when Northvolt went bankrupt and an incredibly large number of people lost their jobs in Skellefteå. When, in a European comparison and not least in an international comparison, incredibly marginal support was given to Stegra, another large and important industrial initiative in Sweden, one chose to call the Energy Agency to the committee for a scolding.

What will the electricity be used for? The Sweden Democrats do not want to phase out fossil energy from the transport sector and so on either. It would be interesting if Tobias Andersson could mention some examples of what the electricity from the new nuclear power will be used for.

Speaking of previous agreements: We were at an expansion rate for new power production of three gigawatts per year when we handed over government power to the Tidö parties. How is it going now? How many gigawatts are being built per year after three years with the Tidö government?

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Linus Lakso, for further questions!

This is what sets us apart. The Sweden Democrats' view on what the electricity should be used for is based on the intrinsic value of an increased Swedish self-sufficiency regarding various forms of energy. I am the first to state that I see it as something valuable. If we can transition in the processes that today utilize fossil energy, which we are not self-sufficient in, and if we can continue to transition in the transport sector so that we can utilize electricity that we have produced in Sweden instead of fuels that are imported from the Middle East, then that is a value in itself from a Swedish self-sufficiency perspective and not least considering the uneasy world around us.

From that end, the Sweden Democrats enter the debate regarding green transition. The Green Party enters at the other end, where they only want to count CO2 emissions and believe that it matters at all whether we become net-zero emitters tomorrow or whether the EU becomes so in ten, five, or fifteen years. The Sweden Democrats do not think that is as important. For us, it is about the degree of self-sufficiency in terms of something as important as energy.

Against that background, we do not oppose a transition of either transport or industries, but it must be able to occur at a pace that ensures we do not lose our competitiveness and do not waste our limited resources.

The two companies that Linus Lakso and everyone else who is constantly cheering for the green transition always highlight are Stegra and Northvolt. I believe rather that the large and important transition is occurring in all other companies – in the small, medium-sized, and fairly large companies, not in ideologically singled-out prestige projects that have been inflated by the various climate-hysterical subsidy forms that Miljöpartiet led the Socialdemokrater to implement in Sweden. The green bubbles that Linus Lakso personally blew up to the extreme are now bursting, and it is becoming difficult.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! In energy policy lie some of the most decisive issues for Sweden's future.

Building and developing the energy system is not a goal in itself but primarily a tool to achieve something else – for example, heating and lighting our homes, powering our industries, lowering our emissions, breaking our dependence on imported fossil energy, improving the business sector's competitiveness, as well as providing opportunities for our industry to develop and create new jobs and welfare. How the policy is designed is also very important for whether Swedish households will be able to pay their bills every month. Efficiency and low costs are therefore central in this work.

When we now stand in the middle of a very poor geopolitical situation where industrial production capacity means both security and jobs, and where fossil-free status builds competitiveness and supply readiness, it is clear that Sweden should rush forward. We should be the country where investments seek out. We should be the country where new technology is tested and where growth and jobs are strong.

That is not the case, however. One must still say that the Tidö government and the Sweden Democrats have let the mandate period go to waste when it comes to the transition for industry, growth, and jobs. Instead of new strength, we see, just as we heard in the exchange of remarks before my speech, a sharp fall when it comes to new investments in electricity production.

It is not so strange, as the conditions for not least offshore wind power have deteriorated. The money to wind power municipalities is not paid out despite being promised, and incentives for neighbors are not in place several years after the investigation was completed. The permit process remains legally uncertain and protracted; the government has even been brought before the European Court of Justice because it has not linked the permit processes as it is required to do. Sweden thus risks fines due to the government's tardiness.

Energy efficiency is one of the most cost-effective measures we have. It is also important, not least because more efficient electricity use is a way to more quickly create space for new users when not much new electricity is available. It is an area where we do not see great activity, even though the Swedish Energy Agency has shown that every seventh kilowatt-hour could be saved in a profitable way. Despite this, a national goal is still missing, and the government has also here passed the deadline for the introduction of a directive. Sweden thus risks EU fines again due to the government's tardiness.

The electricity network regulation now allows for fee increases of up to 100 billion during the regulatory period running from last year and onwards. The introduction of new capacity charges increases costs for customers in a way that few of them understand. The flow-based model that was pushed through a year ago is still questioned regarding the costs, but it was nevertheless implemented.

In other matters, we have agreed in a good way without it really helping. Energy planning and electricity preparedness are things we all think are important and that we are putting more money into. I can give the government praise there – we are doing the same thing.

Therefore, it is serious that the government fails to ensure that Sweden has a reserve capacity in place this winter, which has actually already begun. It is pure luck that it has not become proper winter in the whole country yet. That which has been a safety net for years is now simply not in place. It increases the risk of disconnection for subscribers if unexpected faults were to occur in a more strained situation. This is, of course, a failure both for the authority – as the government has said – and for the government itself, which is naturally ultimately responsible.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs more electricity, and of course, we need to have it as quickly as possible. We need all the fossil-free power we can get. The Social Democrats therefore want to see ambitious goals for new fossil-free electricity production for both 2030 and 2035. It is about onshore and offshore wind power, about solar, water, storage and flexibility, as well as about life extensions and power increases of existing facilities of various kinds.

We know that companies invest where there is a stable supply of cheap and fossil-free electricity. The investment needs are also fundamentally very large, both in existing business and regarding the possibility of new industries. Without a plan for more electricity in the near term, however, we risk missing all these opportunities, and then we also risk that the more long-term nuclear power plan, which the government in particular has, becomes obsolete even before it has started. That, Mr. Speaker, would be a historical mistake. Therefore, one must now secure the expansion of the entire system, not just of that which is to come in the long term.

We also need to strengthen the demand side – electrification. It is not enough to produce electricity; demand must also be able to increase. The permit processes must be shortened, and the industry must be able to invest so that jobs can increase instead of as they are today, when we see layoffs, redundancies, and high unemployment.

We must also stop pretending that the power sources stand against each other, Mr. Speaker, because they do not. Sweden needs all fossil-free power sources. I have mentioned wind, solar, water, and nuclear power, and in southern Sweden we need to complement with not least biogas turbines. District heating needs improved competitiveness, and waste heat needs to be utilized more organizedly – not least when we build new industries and data centers. We need to complement with storage and flexibility in a completely different way than today.

For all of this to happen, long-term rules of the game are required. Sweden therefore needs a broad and cross-bloc energy agreement. The business community wants it, the trade union movement wants it, and the Swedish people need it. An agreement where all fossil-free types of power can be included and where the starting point is security of supply and low costs requires a technology-neutral effort. Therefore, we want the large economic authorization regarding nuclear power that exists in the budget not to be tied to only one type of power but to be opened up for more.

It is a disappointment that, despite many good conversations and many good proposals from several parties, we have not been able to unite around an agreement. The party strategists, as Ebba Busch called them, who would rather see conflict than cooperation in energy policy naturally bear a very great responsibility. In the long run, they cause the Swedish people very large costs and many missed opportunities.

I know that Sweden can do significantly better than this, Mr. Speaker. Our companies want to invest. They want to expand production, create jobs and reduce emissions, but the politics actually do not help today but instead put spokes in the wheels. Swedish industry and Swedish business actually deserve more respect from politics. They deserve long-term decisions and stable rules of the game, because that is how we can together create jobs, security and prosperity.

That is why we Social Democrats want to continue working for a modern, stable and future-oriented energy policy – and do so together with others. We want to work for a policy that provides an expansion of all fossil-free power sources, provides long-term conditions, strengthens our competitiveness, lowers costs for households, reduces emissions and makes Sweden a leader in the green technology shift. That is the direction Sweden needs.

We naturally stand behind our budget alternative in its entirety, including in the energy area. I therefore refer to our specific statement on this issue.

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! "One country, four electricity price areas" is a slogan that I, at least, would not want to write on my election poster next year. But that is where Sweden has ended up, with power shortages in southern Sweden and consequently large price differences that hit families and companies. So we shall not have that in Sweden.

Therefore, it is a central task for politics to remedy the power shortage, build away the bottlenecks, and restore economic security. Security is, in fact, not just harsher punishments and more police; it is also to approach winter without having to worry about whether the money will cover both the electricity bill and Christmas presents for the children.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is rising out of the crisis. Electricity prices have stabilized. Sweden's average spot price during 2024 and 2025 was generally 30–50 percent lower than the peak year 2022, but the price variations between southern and northern Sweden remain.

Fossil gas prices in Europe affect the price structure primarily in Skåne. The business company Invest in Skåne has highlighted that Skåne has lost over 11,000 jobs due to the lack of electricity in the grid, despite the fact that the region otherwise has good conditions for industrial and technological development. It is not sustainable either for Sweden or for Skåne.

The previous government's decommissioning of nuclear power and punitive taxes on combined heat and power led to more than 20 percent of the planned electricity production in southern Sweden disappearing. There, one has today Europe's worst self-sufficiency rate during the winter.

For my party Moderaterna, the goal is clear: Sweden shall never again be price-controlled by Putin's gas prices. Therefore, we are building planned fossil-free power and strengthening the transmission capacity within the country.

Madam Speaker! The Government is now laying the foundation for the first expansion of Swedish nuclear power in over 40 years. The Riksdag is making a decision on state loans for investments of up to 220 billion kronor, as well as a corresponding risk reserve to ensure that the projects are carried out in a safe and cost-effective manner.

It is worth mentioning here that nine Swedish industrial companies have announced that they will enter as partial owners in the first nuclear power project at Ringhals. It is a statement of strength that Sweden has competitive, long-term and responsible industrial companies. They demonstrate with their investment that they know that stable and fossil-free electricity is a prerequisite for jobs, growth and security. A look at the rest of the world proves them right – there are no energy-poor countries that have seen a secure and stable economic development.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is on the right track, but it will take time to rebuild what was quickly torn down. Here and now, we also need to take initiatives that ensure we can get through the winter.

Therefore, the government is lowering the electricity tax by approximately 20 percent, which is historically very much, so that electricity costs for families and companies decrease. In parallel, a new high-cost protection is introduced which kicks in if the electricity price exceeds 1 SEK and 50 öre during a month. That this should be necessary is unreasonable, but we do what is required for Sweden to weather the difficult times and see a brighter tomorrow.

Madam Speaker! Swedish industry has announced plans that could lead to a doubled electricity demand in 2045. In order for Sweden to maintain its industrial competitiveness, both increased production and increased transmission capacity are therefore needed. It is precisely for that reason that the government is now making historical investments.

Investments in the transmission grid are now increasing sharply and are in the magnitude of 20 billion per year. This is the largest system reinforcement in modern times. It is completely necessary for the electrification of society and the expansion of industry to be able to continue. Obstacles are being removed step by step to facilitate the expansion of the grid.

What do we get for the money, behind these big, fine words? We get, for example, new power cables to Gotland which ensure that we on the island will have electricity in the socket even beyond 2030. The project to build new power cables to Gotland stood completely still between 2017 and 2022. Social Democratic energy ministers such as Ygeman, Baylan and Farmanbar did not do what was required.

In 2022, Sweden received a new government. Energy Minister Busch took only 80 days before she gave Svenska kraftnät the sharp mandate to connect Gotland with the main grid. In 2030, the cables will be connected, despite six years of red-green delay. It says something about the pace having been stepped up.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has skilled engineers, responsible industrial companies, and a robust financing model for new nuclear power. When the policy currently being pursued creates the conditions and the business sector dares to invest, Sweden can return to becoming the stable nuclear power nation that was long taken for granted.

In a time when our security policy situation is the most serious in decades, we are strengthening Sweden's energy preparedness and increasing investments in electricity preparedness, robust power grids, and cybersecurity. The energy system must not only function in everyday life but also in crisis and, ultimately, in war.

Safety is about law and order, but it is also about having a job to go to and cheap electricity in the outlet, as well as a resilient society that holds together. Now we are rebuilding it.

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

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! It is naturally very important to talk about the prices that households face in this area, and it is naturally extremely good that prices are stabilizing after the shock that occurred during 2021 and 2022 in connection with Russia's attack on Ukraine and the preparations that were obviously made before this. But it is also the case that today we have an industry that in many cases is having a really tough time. This applies, for example, to the steel industry, the forest industry, and the chemical industry, which are not producing as much as they should. It is therefore partly due to the economic problems and the low growth that this area can also exhibit slightly lower prices. It is a small consolation in the longer perspective.

Furthermore, more electricity production is needed in southern Sweden in order to be able to keep prices down in the long term and enable more industries there.

That is why it is so bad – actually really bad – that the government has worsened the conditions to such a mild degree that Kriegers flak has not been built during this parliamentary term. This otherwise could have been completed, in order to lower prices, not least in Skåne. The electricity would be sufficient for 500,000 villas. The Electricity Commission has calculated that this will have large price effects in Skåne.

Swedish industry is clear: They want cheaper electricity as soon as possible. When the CEO of Energiföretagen was present for 30 minutes some months ago, she pointed out that 80 terawatt-hours were needed by 2035 in the form of wind, combined heat and power, storage, and efficiency. Where is that policy among the Moderaterna? This is not about waiting for nuclear power, which may be necessary in the longer perspective. Where is the policy that ensures that the industrial base in Sweden remains and develops if one does not expand here and now?

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Olovsson for the question.

When nine Swedish industrial companies let the money talk and invest in new Swedish nuclear power, I think it is very clear what they see as most necessary. The laws of physics also give them the right – it is difficult to run large cement kilns and large steelworks on intermittent power such as solar or wind power. There is a need, so to speak, for more inertia in the system.

Madam Speaker! It is important to note that we have built around 17,000 megawatts of wind power in Sweden. It delivers somewhere between 20 and 30 percent of the time, while a Swedish nuclear power plant delivers between 90 and 95 percent of the time. We need more stability in the grid – it is not solely my political opinion, but it is also what is evident when one reads about capacity charges, disconnection, and other matters. More stability and robustness were needed for the whole, not just individual wind farms.

I will agree with Fredrik Olovsson that all issues regarding the energy transition will not be resolved in the budget debate here in the Swedish Riksdag. More needs to be done when it comes to permit processes, environmental assessments, and appeals. This is a very important part that the government is actively working on.

We also need to strengthen the capacity of the authorities. There is a shortage of both engineers and transformers. Furthermore, more needs to be done by municipalities, not least when it comes to the allocation of land.

All of Sweden needs to be engaged in ensuring that we will have a sustainable abundance of energy in the future, not just in the summer but all year round.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I would still like to circle back to what Jesper Skalberg Karlsson said initially regarding what one should have on their election poster before the election this autumn. It seems that the Moderaterna in Skåne intend to have: "No more energy production here. We are waiting for nuclear power before prices can be lowered." I believe that is hard to sell, as most probably think that one should build the power production that can be built and supplement the wind power with, for example, biogas turbines that can provide additional support when even more intermittent power arrives.

This is not impossible to do, on the contrary. It is something that can be put in place long before nuclear power can be built in Sweden. It is correct that there are companies that want to invest in nuclear power, and they want to, not least because a large support system is on its way. With a corresponding system for other types of power, the pressure on them to get started would also become even higher.

Now, the one-sided policy risks undermining everything that could happen in the next ten to twelve years while waiting for nuclear power to be in place. But I do not believe that people in Skåne, Halland, Blekinge, or others in the country are prepared to wait that long to get lower electricity prices and greater opportunities for connection and industrial activity.

Therefore, it is time for the Moderaterna to live up to some of the writings in the budget bill which point out that more wind power and efforts for wind power are needed. But it always ends with that none of this is done. Therefore, the prices are high, and therefore there will be less industrial development in Sweden. In the long run, it will make us more dependent on foreign, imported energy, and we will lose jobs and welfare. It is therefore time to live up to the fine writings that exist with concrete actions.

We are happy to do this jointly in an agreement on energy policy where more types of power than just nuclear power are included.

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! There may be reasons to place Fredrik Olovsson's contribution in a somewhat larger context. The energy market and the turmoil in the market that we see today, the Social Democrats are not innocent of. It was red-green governments that imposed new taxes on combined heat and power and district heating, and it was the Social Democrats who only approved a single offshore wind farm during their eight years. If I remember correctly, we have approved twice as many. It is our government that is developing a financing model for new Swedish nuclear power. Under the Social Democrats' government base, that appears impossible.

It is this government that is lowering the tax on food, electricity bills, work, and so on. An ordinary Swedish family, two adults and two children, has approximately 5,000 kronor more to move with per month. That is the result of our policy.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the most important, the biggest, and what the power grid needs most, that is, stability and nuclear power, we are in agreement. But it is not the Moderaternas task to tuck the Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet into the fold. It is the Socialdemokraternas task, and I can only wish them luck.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! The Moderate's Jesper Skalberg speaks a lot about what should be done in Skåne. One must give credit to the Moderates' regional council in Skåne, which pursues a fairly active policy to achieve more power, not least through Skåne's effect commission.

The challenge she has is that the Moderaternas policy at the national level is precisely the opposite. They have raised the tax on wind power, and they are imposing a number of local vetoes at the municipal level – here, there is a fight from both sides. The government has also not delivered the budget funds they have promised the municipalities, and they have not delivered on the investigation regarding more compensation to neighbors, which they even promised in the government statement. They have such protracted processes for the permits that the EU is now taking Sweden to court.

We know that if one wants to free up more capacity, the fastest way is not new electricity production but by improving efficiency. Energiforsk has shown that as little as 5 percent efficiency could lower the electricity price by 40 percent. Nevertheless, the Moderaterna and the government have abolished the entire goal for energy efficiency. As was said earlier, a large number of the permit applications for offshore wind power that have been placed on the government's table have also been rejected, and now others are being sidelined despite the defense having given its approval at an early stage.

What is the Moderaterna doing to achieve more electricity production in southern Sweden, especially during the winter, when we know that wind power delivers the most, besides investing in nuclear power which we know will be expensive and which, if nothing else, we will have to wait quite a long time for? What is the Moderaterna doing in the next ten years, before we have new nuclear power in place, to lower electricity bills?

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! An electricity system can handle some wind power, but when wind power becomes an excessively large part of the energy mix, requirements must also be placed on wind power to behave in the electricity system and be able to deliver stable power not only when it is blowing. The government's direction is that wind power should have more equal conditions as the other types of power. I note in the Center Party's motion that one rather wants nuclear power to stand entirely on its own feet while for all other fossil-free power, grid connections and other things shall be financed. There, it is therefore only nuclear power that is disadvantaged.

Madam Speaker! Efficiency plays an absolute role, but if we are to double electricity production in Sweden, we cannot do it through efficiency. We do not solve the problem that we will need more electricity by using less electricity. That equation does not add up.

Madam Speaker! The investments being made are about transporting electricity from where it is produced to where it is to be consumed. The transmission grid is being expanded at record speed, which I also mentioned in my speech. In addition, there are investments in Kraftlyftet and other projects – which would gladly proceed faster, but then the permit processes, the agency capacity, and the municipal decisions also need to keep pace with that.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! The problem is that quite a lot of what Jesper Skalberg criticizes for not happening fast enough is the government's responsibility. The permit processes are the government's responsibility, and here, they have not delivered. Sweden is therefore being brought before the EU Court because it is going too slowly.

The government says that energy efficiency makes no difference, but according to the Swedish Energy Agency, every sixth kilowatt-hour can be profitably saved through efficiency. It is the fastest way to get more electricity into the grid, and it would have made an enormous difference. Energikontor Syd shows that in public properties alone, one could have saved 1 billion. But the government is scrapping the energy efficiency goal. It is madness.

It is the grid companies, not the government, that are behind the record pace in the expansion of the transmission grid. What the government can influence, however, is the grid fees, and in that regard, it is a record. The state's own company Vattenfall is raising the grid fee by 14 percent next year.

The government went to the election on lowered electricity bills, but they have raised the electricity tax during three of their four years. What they did now was to restore it to the level that was before the election. They have thus not lowered the electricity tax but raised it and then restored it.

Electricity prices are skyrocketing, and the electricity prices we see are at the same level as in 2021. The government talks about the high-cost protection, but during the last 30 years, it has kicked in for five months. The high-cost protection therefore makes no difference in practice.

There is so much that should be done. It is very good that Jesper Skalberg highlights Kraftlyftet, but not a single penny has been paid out because the Government Offices have not managed their internal processes and therefore have not been able to deliver.

It is very many words. But we still do not get a single announcement about what should be done in the next ten years to lower electricity bills in southern Sweden, because there have only been problematizations for Jesper Skalberg.

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! It is a special irony that the EU Commission is suing Sweden because they think we are not doing enough to reach the goals in the climate area regarding approximately 40 percent fossil-free energy in the electricity grid. Sweden is already at 99 percent, so what the EU Commission has against Sweden and, in that regard, the 26 other EU countries it is suing, the Commission must answer for.

Madam Speaker! The Government wants to see a sustainable surplus of energy in Sweden. This requires both increased production and increased transmission capacity so that we can both build away the bottlenecks and achieve a single electricity price area in Sweden.

The imbalances we see now are largely a consequence of the policy that has been pursued previously, where an all-too-large proportion consists of weather-dependent power that does not provide the stability that the Swedish power grid, the Swedish companies, and the Swedish families need, want, and rely on.

It will take time to get Sweden in order, and it will take time to rebuild what has been torn down. But we are ready to do what is required, both for this winter and for the future.

How the Center Party is then to make their equation work with the green electricity certificates that Miljöpartiet proposes, the electricity price cap that could cost somewhere between 0 and 90 billion kronor that Vänsterpartiet proposes, and the other fever dreams, mostly on the theme of rainbows and unicorns, the Center Party must try to sort out.

We take responsibility for ensuring that the electricity grid is supplemented with production that ensures the entire grid is in good health. This requires more fossil-free baseload, especially in southern Sweden. We look forward to that also becoming a reality.

(Applause)

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I even left my jeans behind, because I thought that if I put on dress trousers, perhaps the government representatives would listen better. We shall see.

Expenditure area 21 Energy is the subject of this debate.

I will skip going into the budget law, financial reporting, or indicators used within respective expenditure areas. However, Madam Speaker, I shall try to give a picture of what I and the Left Party simply think has gone off the rails, in plain Swedish.

The deregulation of the Swedish electricity market took place in 1996. In 1994, the Moderates cobbled together a bill called Handel med el i konkurrens. But the Moderates lost the election, and the law did not manage to enter into force before the Social Democrats regained government power. What happened then? Well, the Social Democrats largely copied the Moderates' bill and renamed it Ny ellagstiftning.

When the Moderaterna submitted the proposal, one could read their argument: ”The pricing is adapted to the customers' needs and circumstances.” When has the customer been able to influence the pricing if their circumstances for paying have been poor? Tell me that! Talk about false marketing, right?

What did the Social Democrats write were good things about the deregulation? Well, this: "The new electricity legislation implies competition in the trade of electricity that increases the freedom of choice for electricity consumers and creates conditions for increased price and cost pressure within the electricity supply." Freedom of choice? Wait until we get to the electricity grids!

What then was the difference between what the Moderaterna proposed and what the Sossarna subsequently adopted? I want to assert that it was the heading of the proposition, nothing else.

Madam Speaker! I am, of course, a modern socialist who also understands and embraces market economy and who sees that competition has an effect in many areas. I sometimes take retrospective looks at my home regions and history, and now I am going to take a small retrospective look at my childhood.

Before July 1972, the forest workers had to provide their own tools, that is to say, the chainsaw. I remember, Madam Speaker, how my father bought a chainsaw on installment. The reason I remember this so clearly is that when it was finally paid off, the whole family knew about it, surely because there was a bit more money to move with then.

Why do I tell this? Well, because through the development that has occurred with the market economy's free competition for chainsaws, I could today buy a new chainsaw every month without installments. If the state had been the owner, it would never have had an interest in or opportunities to develop it in the way that the market has done.

But I shall return to the electricity market. A socially important function, which also included the distribution of electricity, was deregulated. I will not blame either red or blue governments for where we stand today. I am usually pragmatic, and I intend to try to be so now as well. We cannot influence history, however, we may perhaps learn something from it. But the future, Madam Speaker, is ours, and that we can influence.

How can we allow foreign companies to buy and own socially important infrastructure, which the electricity grid actually is? That is a question I think we all must ask ourselves.

I have no problem with us having free competition when it comes to most things in our surroundings, but when even those authorities that look at the civil part of the crisis preparedness mention that critical infrastructure includes the electricity grid, I think we should wake up, Madam Speaker. Electricity production can perhaps be put out to tender, but not distribution – not when there is no possibility of "freedom of choice", as it was so nicely expressed when it happened with the deregulation.

When we had Vattenfall Eldistribution visiting the committee, they showed a picture with graphs and prices. It started in 2017, and one might ask why the comparison picture started in that year. The picture that emerged was that they really do not charge more in fees than what is invested. I almost started to feel sorry for Vattenfall Eldistribution.

This may match what is in their coffers today, but I promise that I will get to the bottom of this and see where all the money that has been collected from Swedish electricity customers since deregulation has gone. When companies that also own production need the grid and power lines reinforced – how does the benefit of the swings reach the carousel and so on? That is something we need to think about.

It does not feel safe, at least not as a consumer, to hear when our authority, which is supposed to try to regulate the prices of grid fees, says that grid companies have been overcompensated through the fees they are allowed to charge.

Recently today, we had a visit from the Energy Market Inspectorate, who said that Sweden stood out among the Nordic countries between 2010 and 2020, i.e., a ten-year period. While we raised the grid fee by 30 percent, Norway raised it by 0 percent and Finland by 3–5 percent. We stand out.

Madam Speaker! The policy I stand behind is based on the insight that a rapid transition is required, among other things in energy policy, so that Sweden can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition from fossil dependency to primarily electricity.

When the railway infrastructure is expanded and the industry's manufacturing processes shift to fossil-free, the availability of electricity will need to increase significantly. In some scenarios, electricity consumption is predicted to increase many times over compared to today. Focusing the energy policy initiatives on fossil-free alternatives sounds understandable and appealing, but in the governing parties' rhetoric and policy, it is quickly translated to nuclear power, nuclear power, and again nuclear power. In this nuclear power craze, it seems they completely ignore the fact that nuclear power is dangerous, incredibly expensive, and time-consuming to establish.

What is needed instead is a goal of 100 percent renewable energy supply by 2040 at the latest. Remember that I said a goal! It shall be guiding for the transition work. But to that, a planning goal must also be attached that includes quantified sub-goals.

The government's focus on 2045 as a target year risks causing important investments and grid initiatives that are needed already now, which are highlighted in previous statements, to be pushed into the future. For the industry to dare to invest in the transition, the companies must know that there is access to fossil-free and cheap electricity already in 2030. This undeniably requires, among other things, a rapid expansion of renewable Swedish electricity production instead of the government's unreasonably expensive and multi-dimensionally risky focus on nuclear power.

By investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy such as wind energy, solar energy, bioenergy and geothermal energy, it is possible to create an ecologically sustainable society. In contrast to the government, I advocate for historical investments in both renewable energy production and investments in power grids and energy efficiency.

I believe that better incentives are needed for wind power both on land and at sea. I advocate here for opportunities to benefit the municipalities where wind power is built as well as the residents nearby. It cannot be denied that where wind power or other larger energy or industrial facilities are built, it triggers a considerable amount of reactions. It is, in my opinion, therefore perfectly reasonable that municipalities and regions are compensated for the intrusion that these production facilities entail.

Vänsterpartiet has a heap of proposals for measures that would untie many knots that are in the way of not only renewable electricity production but the entire green transition and the future for rural areas – especially in Norrland, which I know best. Please read our report Norrland i centrum! You are welcome to steal our proposals; then perhaps we will arrive at something sensible faster.

In line with the expansion of renewable power production, it is also necessary that the power transmission capacity is strengthened and that the electricity market is reformed.

When it comes to the electricity grid, I believe it is essential that it is owned by society through, for example, the state or the municipalities.

Regarding a reformed electricity market, I and others in Vänsterpartiet have for a long time pointed out the risks with the pricing model that allows continental electricity prices to spill over into the Swedish market. That is the difference. If a new reactor were to be in place today in price area 4, that electricity would go to export every hour except perhaps 140 hours a year.

Here I advocate instead for Swedish prices, a model where the domestic market is separated from the export market. It leads to a normalization of electricity prices in Sweden while it is possible to sell electricity in solidarity and make it available for our neighboring countries. In tough economic times, I see it as particularly urgent to protect squeezed Swedish electricity consumers from high electricity prices.

We have, of course, rejected money intended for new nuclear power, regardless of how they are intended to be accounted for.

In addition, we have rejected the government proposal for a temporary protection against high electricity prices at 1.50 per kilowatt-hour and instead wanted to have an electricity price cap for households at 75 öre per kilowatt-hour, which is financed through a mandatory electricity price insurance fee to be borne by the electricity industry and not by the taxpayers. That is why we have 1 billion less in the budget proposal.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, we have a special statement. We do not participate in the decision on the frameworks as we have a budget that must be seen as a whole.

Pardon me for exceeding the time, Madam Speaker!

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Member Lahti for the long speech!

The Left Party's shadow budget contains tax increases for families and companies of around 70 billion kronor. That is the overall figure. But I want to ask a question about another figure, and it is the one that is not included in the budget proposal.

Vänsterpartiet wants an electricity price cap of 75 öre, and then the "electricity industry" is supposed to pay for it. A bit of napkin mathematics shows that every five-öre of the electricity price cap that is to be financed will cost this electricity industry approximately 3 billion kronor. It could therefore be 3, 9, 30 or why not 60 billion kronor.

It feels like this electricity price cap is actually just a pretty package for the fact that Vänsterpartiet intends to promise just about anything and let someone else take the bill. But I still want to give Vänsterpartiet the benefit of the doubt. What does the electricity price cap actually cost? How large will the fees and tax increases be with Vänsterpartiet's budget proposal?

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Jesper Skalberg Karlsson!

First and foremost, this is an insurance that we want the electricity industry to take out. And if one had introduced Swedish prices, I do not think it would have needed to cost anything at all. It would not have needed to be introduced. Today, it is the continental prices that cause price area 4 to be affected by high electricity prices, while we in price area 1 do not have that.

As for where one would land in terms of price, I unfortunately have no answer. One can only assume that the government thinks that 1 billion is enough for a electricity price cap of 1.50 kronor. It is an average price of 1.50 excluding VAT, which one has to go over for a whole month before one, so to speak, gets paid for it – without any frills, obviously. But if Sweden prices, where one excludes the export prices, had been introduced in the country, not even 75 öre would have come up for discussion.

It is not a great risk that an insurance would cost as much as over 1 billion for the electricity industry. I find it hard to believe.

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! The answer as to what the leftist turn proposed by the red-green parties will cost seems to be that we shall see.

The electricity price cut of 75 öre that Vänsterpartiet proposes is a number of billions. The carbon tax reduction that Socialdemokraterna proposes is a few tens of billions. Miljöpartiet's proposal on green electricity certificates will probably not be cheap either.

Let me move on and ask questions that are a bit easier to answer. Vänsterpartiet wants to scrap the nuclear power plans but wants to spend 50 billion on a new state-owned wind power company. My question then is: When you say no to fossil-free, predictable electricity production in southern Sweden that can give southern Sweden the folkhemspriser they deserve and which is referred to as Sverigepriser by Vänsterpartiet, why should the state instead force-run these wind turbines without the municipalities' support? Why should one engage in the risky investment, which provides electricity perhaps 30 percent of the time?

Is this what this modern socialism is that Birger Lahti says he advocates?

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I do not know "modern socialism".

First and foremost: regarding the pricing of new nuclear power, there is no final sum today, not even in your calculations. We do not know where it will land. We have no answer as to whether these 200 billion will be enough, plus credit guarantees. There is no finished module for you either when it comes to what new nuclear power will cost.

We in Vänsterpartiet have said that we are prepared to extend the lifespan of existing reactors in Sweden. We are prepared for that because your policy, the one that this government has pursued, has caused wind power installations to stagnate for reasons that are understandable. There is no one who knows what tomorrow will look like.

It would obviously be reasonable for the state not only to take care of the grid but to have a company that ensures that renewable electricity production is expanded in the country and that it is perhaps owned by the regions and by society as a whole. Then it becomes at least more predictable than if one lets a market that is as uncertain as it is today manage it.

Why have we ended up here? Why has an experiment been made of a function as socially important as electricity distribution? That was what I tried to highlight in my speech. Is it something that is unreasonable? It is this. I am just waiting for the Moderaterna to come and try to sell out other values we have in Sweden. Is this the liberal view on socially important functions in Sweden? I will never buy it, and I am very happy that we do not agree on that point.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! The energy infrastructure is Sweden's backbone – a critical infrastructure. It is that which enables us to withstand crisis and war. It is that which enables a competitive business sector, which in turn finances our common welfare.

And finally, it is thanks to our fossil-free base power that families and individuals can create a good life for themselves and that it is possible to live and reside in all of Sweden. The Swedish power system is actually a treasure, something almost unique in an international perspective.

Almost everyone in this chamber sees the energy infrastructure so clearly today that one hardly remembers how it was previously. For many years, energy policy was a political football. Symbolic politics were driven in the name of the climate. Emotionally driven proposals were submitted. But things that sound good can work very poorly in practice.

And that is exactly what happened – bad for our home, Sweden. The result was unstable electricity prices and power shortages. Parties spoke proudly about importing German energy policy to Sweden, only to stand here, in this chamber, a few years later, and complain that we have now received German electricity prices.

Madam Speaker! Irresponsible was the word. We are no longer there today.

Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, high inflation and the pandemic – many have been the crises of recent years. In all this misery, Sweden has woken up from its fantasy world, seen reality as it is and started making more pragmatic decisions – decisions that protect and manage what we have done well, decisions that sharpen legislation where it has been too soft and develop regulatory frameworks where we have been too rigid. It is politics that makes a real difference for Swedish families.

Madam Speaker! The government's fourth budget is a budget that makes it cheaper to be Swedish. It puts more in the accounts for families, more food on the table for the money, and better conditions for families, companies, and farmers. It is a budget for all hard-working parents, for all young people seeking their first job, and for all entrepreneurs who want to devote their time to their business instead of unnecessary paperwork.

We are raising the housing allowance. We are lowering the tax on food. We are lowering the fee for preschool and after-school care. We are lowering the tax for pensioners and persons with sickness benefit or activity compensation. We are raising the job tax deduction so that more people can keep more of their wages.

This means that an average family in Sweden with two children gets 5,000 kronor more in their wallet per month compared to when the government took office in 2022.

Madam Speaker! We have navigated through the high inflation with the help of an orderly, responsible fiscal policy. Now comes the tax refund.

In the energy area, we continue the work in line with the energy policy direction bill with the goal of 100 percent fossil-free electricity, clear planning goals, and goals for security of supply. On Tuesday, we will make decisions that further strengthen this direction.

We are strengthening both energy preparedness and electricity preparedness, including cybersecurity and electrical safety. Svenska kraftnät receives extensive mandates and investment plans to expand and reinforce the transmission grid, not least in northern Norrbotten, to meet the industry's needs and strengthen transmission capacity.

We are lowering the tax on electricity and reintroducing a high-cost protection against high electricity prices for households. The municipalities that were disadvantaged by previous electricity support are compensated. We are extending and developing the support for energy efficiency in small houses, complemented by information initiatives and skill-enhancing measures.

Madam Speaker! It is no news that the government is investing in new nuclear power. In order to meet the climate goals and meet the industry's growing electricity needs, secure the security of supply, and reduce the price differences between the electricity price areas, more reactors were needed.

Therefore, a nuclear power program is introduced with simplified and faster permit processes, state loan frameworks of up to 220 billion SEK with an equally large risk reserve, subsidized state loans to lower capital costs during the investment phase, as well as two-way difference contracts that provide stable revenues, set a price floor and a price ceiling, and protect the state against excess profits, with a framework of up to 400 billion SEK. In addition, extra funds are allocated for the planning and coordination of new nuclear power, both nationally and regionally.

Madam Speaker! We do not stop there. Now, the electricity market investigation is being prepared in the Government Offices. Svenska kraftnät shall also analyze a new electricity area division and review connection processes and access to the electricity market. District heating and cooling are highlighted sufficiently as an important resource for both electricity and heat, especially locally and regionally. We continue to support the expansion of charging infrastructure for electricity and hydrogen, and we continue to stimulate biogas production.

Madam Speaker! Things are happening within energy policy.

Through forward-looking management combined with a political governance based on physics and reality, rather than in ideological pipe dreams, we ensure that the electricity in the wall sockets continues to make it possible to live and reside in all of Sweden.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! On September 30, 2024, we were able to read in the newspaper Barometern that Ebba Busch is making her seat available if she does not resolve the situation for small-scale hydropower.

My question to Camilla Brodin is very simple: Does Camilla Brodin and Kristdemokraterna think that the situation for small-scale hydropower is resolved?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Rickard Nordin, for a very important question! We are both aware of the issues surrounding hydropower and have been for quite a long time.

The government has tried to take steps, step by step, to improve, especially for small-scale hydropower, which I know the member also has a great heart for. We see its importance for the cultural heritage that exists in the countryside. It is incredibly important that we get that issue right.

We are not quite there yet. That is the first thing I regret. There is no doubt about where we Christian Democrats stand on the issue. More must be done.

We are also awaiting answers from the authorities, which are to come after the turn of the year. Somewhere, the interpretation needs to be made that one is actually an incredibly important resource for the entire society in Sweden. This applies, of course, to large-scale hydropower but also to small-scale hydropower.

But thank you, Rickard Nordin, for raising this issue!

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! It is gratifying to hear that Camilla Brodin does not think one is completely off base. Then the question becomes: Do the Christian Democrats believe that the commitments and measures currently being planned will be sufficient? It was indeed that one should solve the situation, which Ebba Busch promised as recently as last autumn – not that one should try, not that one should give mandates to authorities, but that one should solve the situation.

The reports I receive from small-scale hydropower say that the situation is worse now than before. The measures that have been planned and taken from the agency side and from the government's side through regulatory changes have made it worse. They focus more on the large-scale. There we have the opposite situation. We have a situation where we actually in some cases, for example in Jämtland, would need more fish migration routes to for example save certain trout stocks, while in the south one perhaps needs more to protect small-scale hydropower. The problem here is therefore that the government has gone in the wrong direction on both sides, which is very tricky.

But to capture what Camilla Brodin said and the measures that are now being planned: Will the government and the Christian Democrats fulfill the promise that the situation for small-scale hydropower will have been resolved by the time we reach election day?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Rickard Nordin, for so excellently expressing the concern that exists regarding both small-scale hydropower and also hydropower in general, which is a part of our entire base load. It risks being torn away, and if it happens to the extent that we hear many have a concern for, it would be a catastrophe for Sweden, I believe.

I and my party stand steadfast on the side of the hydropower owners. We do everything we can. We also need, perhaps in the next election, a few more percent to be able to exert pressure. But we stand completely steadfast on the side of hydropower.

We are not there yet. We are doing what we can. On the energy side of the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise, people are actively working on this issue and following it. My hope is absolutely that we will be able to see better conditions ahead in order to be able to address this in the regulatory changes that are on the table. I also hope that the Hydroelectric Power Environmental Fund will be able to get started and open again, which is a major cause for concern for many of the owners of small-scale hydropower.

Our unwavering support for hydropower cannot be doubted. My hope is that we will be able to move forward in this issue during this parliamentary term.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! We have low electricity prices in Sweden, but it is not reflected in the households' wallets. The electricity bill consists of more than the electricity price.

During the election campaign, all the Tidö parties promised to lower the electricity tax. Instead, it has been raised, not once or twice but three times; it has been raised every year. Now it is being restored to the previous level, but it was not a reduction. It is many billions extra that households have had to pay during this mandate period. In fact, at times we have paid more tax on pure electricity than on fossil diesel.

Ebba Busch stood and hugged a vacuum cleaner, but after she became Minister for Energy, new electricity production in the near term has both been mocked and opposed. Grid prices have skyrocketed. The state-owned company Vattenfall is raising prices more than anyone else – 14 percent next year. Instead of helping people to improve energy efficiency and lower their electricity bill, the entire goal for energy efficiency is being scrapped.

It is not strange that the electricity bill is becoming expensive. The government has effectively ensured that it becomes expensive. But how else can one justify the hundreds of billions they want to spend on nuclear power? Furthermore, they are introducing an extra tax on households' bills – an Ebba Busch tax for new nuclear power, which is to be paid until her 90th birthday.

It is almost Christmas, and then the same songs are played over and over again. This seems to be what the government has taken inspiration from, because one sounds a bit like a broken record repeating itself. One has gotten stuck in a rut. All problems are due to decommissioned nuclear power. All problems shall be solved with new nuclear power, whatever the cost may be. That it will, at best, be in place towards 2040 means, besides the hundreds of billions that taxpayers and households will have to cough up, that we will have to wait 15 years more with these electricity bills and a situation where the industry needs electricity significantly faster than that. It is not sufficient.

But fortunately, there is of course an alternative. In the Center Party's budgets, we have lowered the electricity tax several times. In the Center Party's budget, the focus also lies on electricity production in the near term. We have talked about a crisis commission for increased electricity production. We have ensured that the property tax on energy production, instead of landing in the state treasury's black hole, stays in the municipalities, where it can result in more teachers, more nursing assistants, new tiles on the electricity track, or perhaps even a lowered municipal tax. With the government's policy, however, they do not even manage to pay out the money that is set aside.

With our policy, the government's tax increases on solar cells are also stopped, and the offshore wind power is expanded. There are still rejections for 13 offshore wind farms out of 14 possible. Now, additional parks are on the government's table that decisions are not being made on, despite the Armed Forces having given positive signals in initial stages. With our policy, electricity production also increases in the near term, and the need for grid expansion decreases.

Even Ebba Busch gives the government a failing grade when it comes to paying out the money that one has set aside oneself. That says a great deal.

We also emphasize the importance of correct investments from the state and of helping people out of their problems. By supporting people who want to improve energy efficiency, we lower the electricity bill for them not only this winter but also all coming winters. Furthermore, there will be more electricity left over in the entire system, which lowers the price for everyone. Energiforsk has shown that a 5 percent reduction in electricity use could lower the electricity price by 40 percent when it is at its highest. It is socio-economically smart, and it is wise for the household economy. Instead of paying an expensive electricity bill, perhaps one gets a little left over that can be spent on Christmas presents instead of grid fees.

We also 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 companies earn more money by taking the most expensive measures than by taking the most efficient and cheapest ones.

It is not just about building new lines, which should also be built with minimal land use. It is also about utilizing the flexibility, the efficiencies, and the smart grid solutions that exist and are possible but which today do not yield a return. If we can also get better conditions for energy communities, the grid owners can also be challenged by neighbors and villages joining together and helping each other to solve the situation themselves, just as has been done historically in both road associations and fiber associations.

It is not only when it comes to the electricity grids that a near-monopoly prevails; it also applies to district heating. Here, both decisive action and support are needed. The transparency from the companies regarding pricing must become clearer. Proposals have come from the Energy Markets Inspectorate that are good and a step in the right direction. The government needs to implement them immediately, but it is not enough. District heating is crucial for the energy system to hold together. It relieves the electricity system in a fantastic way, but the companies must be more transparent and clear towards their customers.

We are currently in a tough situation. Biofuel prices have increased, and therefore one needs to find other ways to handle this – utilizing more waste heat, for example, so that we can also free up bio-raw materials for other sectors. Another example is the proposal that Centerpartiet has put forward to lower the electricity tax for specifically combined heat and power, in order to be able to take advantage of the negative prices that occur at times and then be able to use, for example, heat pumps instead.

There is, in fact, in both combined heat and power and hydropower, a very large potential for increased production in existing facilities. We do not even need to expand. If only the facilities that currently have district heating were to install a so-called ORC turbine and also produce electricity, we could obtain electricity equivalent to a nuclear power plant for very little money. In hydropower, there is potential equivalent to four nuclear power plants, at a quarter of the cost of the new reactors that the government plans, within the same time perspective. For the part of combined heat and power, the costs are significantly lower than that.

There is a lot of talk about technology neutrality from the government. But obviously, one does not believe that the nuclear power that one wants to invest in can withstand technology neutrality. In that case, one would have established technology-neutral rules of the game, and then everyone would have been allowed to compete on equal terms.

I have nothing against nuclear power. If you want to expand it, do it! Do it at competitive prices, based on own merits and preferably at existing sites. But one thing is certain: I do not want to indebt my father, myself, my son, and his children because the government has no other energy policy to offer. To risk doubling the national debt in one stroke, which is required if the government's goal of ten reactors is to be achieved, is unparalleled in Swedish history – furthermore, in a situation where we know we need to borrow for the defense buildup and for infrastructure. It will be expensive.

I hope that the government, after having lost the election, realizes that this was foolish, that it was not optimal and that it should be placed on the scrap heap of history. Having competitive electricity prices is, in fact, absolutely crucial for both households and industry. Nuclear power obviously does not manage to deliver on its own terms.

The green transition is an opportunity for Sweden. The government seems to believe that it is about green varnish that plays a minor role and that it is not so important to lead the way. We are going to settle for the EU's minimum level and, as KD and SD say, scrap the Swedish climate goals, even though we agreed on them as recently as a month ago.

Nothing could be more wrong. The world is changing. The business sector has understood that green transition is the same as competitiveness. Their customers, namely, want green products. If we do not support the business sector, they are not Sweden-sentimental, they will move. They will place their investments where the conditions are right. If it is not in Sweden, it will be somewhere else.

Furthermore, these investments are only made once. Once the steelworks is built, that is where the investments will continue to be made. Then Sweden will be phased out as an industrial nation. And when the chemical companies have decided, they will stay. Either it is in the cluster on the west coast or in another country.

For me, it is a self-evident matter that we must ensure the conditions are right. But the government does not seem to have decided. The only thing they seem to know is that they want to do as little as possible, and preferably somewhere else. They would rather invest in e-mopeds in Ghana than in electric cars in Sweden. It is utterly shameful.

Exporting climate policy is a problem. Climate policy and energy policy are also security policy. It is incredibly important for our security that we stop importing fuels from fossil rogue states to Sweden. There is a lot of talk about us having a nearly fossil-free electricity system, but the energy system is far from fossil-free.

Therefore, the Armed Forces must also be part of this solution, just as they are in many other countries. Here, Sweden has significantly more to do. FOI, the Total Defence Research Institute, has also shown how this could be done. Despite that, the government continues to say no.

The government can also not continue to neglect the consequences of the review of hydropower. The pause that was decided upon was good. The Center Party proposed a committee initiative that received support during the last parliamentary term, and the government implemented the pause. But now, they have completely missed taking the measures that are needed.

Ebba Busch promised last year to resign if the situation was not resolved. So far, the situation is not resolved, and the proposals on the table do not resolve the situation either. I look forward to the situation being resolved or to Ebba Busch fulfilling her promise and resigning.

Small-scale hydropower is, in fact, to the highest degree threatened. It is a huge problem, not least in southern Sweden where we know that the power from small-scale hydropower is absolutely crucial for the energy system on a cold winter day. At the same time, we know that in northern Sweden there is a need for environmental adaptations that are not being made.

We have looked at the energy potential, but we have not looked at the environmental potential and the needs, as well as where the money and the measures to be taken will do the most good. It must be done. The Government must redo, do right, and be clear towards its agencies. Then we can also include the environmental values that exist and which are important for eel, salmon, and trout. We can preserve unique cultural environments and protect water surfaces and bathing places.

Madam Speaker! Christmas is near. I will conclude with some praise. There is, in fact, one thing that the government has done well in its budget, both last year and this year. A budget item that people do not talk about so loudly is Kraftlyftet. It is a budget item where one talks about flexibility and capabilities. It is exactly what was needed: technology neutrality to solve genuine problems. It would need both more love and more encouragement from politics.

Unfortunately, a regulatory framework has not been established that allows for the payment of the money. Still, not a single krona has been paid out. It is a pity. It would have actually made a difference. It is a pity that one does not choose to prioritize it over a lot of other things.

My wish for the new year to the government concerns precisely flexibility and storage. There are incredibly many solutions for lower electricity bills, lower grid costs, and ultimately a much more stable energy system.

Listen to what the Energy Markets Inspectorate has said about increased flexibility! Take advantage of Power Circles' ideas! Implement the adjustments needed to unleash the potential in smart control! Include it in the green deduction, so that more people can be involved in doing this here at home! It would make a real difference.

We in the Riksdag have a duty to try to solve this together. The Centre Party has done it many times before. We are ready to reach a compromise, if the other parties want to come to the negotiating table. I am convinced that we can solve this together, so that jobs will increase and emissions will decrease, for the households, for the companies, for the climate, and for Sweden.

Merry Christmas!

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! Sweden's prosperity and also its security are based on precisely secure and stable access to energy. Furthermore, it needs to be at competitive prices. Under previous governments, we have seen a development where Swedish energy supply has deteriorated increasingly. The stable baseload power has been phased out slowly but also systematically.

This government has overhauled the energy policy. A clear and long-term direction has been maintained: to build a robust, fossil-free, and cost-effective energy system. Thus, the building blocks have been laid to be able to achieve an electrification of transport and industry and in that way enable the green transition.

But it must not be forgotten that one objective has been to strengthen Swedish competitiveness and make Swedish companies powerful in a globalized but increasingly uncertain world. A robust energy system is clearly needed to handle not only an everyday life of frying meatballs and doing laundry but also a crisis situation with increased anxiety and uncertainty.

Madam Speaker! Until quite recently, Sweden was self-sufficient in electricity every day of the year, every hour of the day, regardless of the weather. Since then, a total of six fully functioning nuclear reactors have been shut down for political reasons. It is the result of the decisions we have seen in recent years. When we have, for example, had operational outages or when the remaining plants for other reasons have not run at full capacity, we have seen what great consequences it has for the Swedish energy system. Parts of southern Sweden, not least my hometown Malmö, risk being forcibly disconnected from the grid. So vulnerable we have made ourselves.

To fundamentally destroy a well-functioning, competitive energy system should hardly be possible. But that is where we stood when this mandate period began. The long-term direction for energy policy that this government presented when it took office is fixed. It is also being implemented step by step. It is good, and it is absolutely necessary.

Madam Speaker! With that said, it is obvious that much remains to be done. I believe that many of us feel that it is something intuitively wrong when we, within the same country, have such large price differences as we see today and have seen for a longer period of time.

I know that there are those in the chamber who think that the solution to this is to cut the cables to the outside world. I think that would be a mistake. Properly designed, the interconnected European electricity market is a key to a stable energy system. But naturally, we need to build up the Swedish and, for that part, also the European production.

Regarding the production of energy specifically, this government has set a new line. The goal has been stated: to increase the production of fossil-free energy at competitive prices.

Thanks to the absolutely crucial decisions that have been made during this mandate period, we stand better equipped than four years ago. It has been mentioned earlier here in the chamber that we have made decisions on new nuclear power. We have also lowered the electricity tax and made a larger investment in Kraftlyftet. Perhaps most importantly is that we have established the historic shift from the renewable to the fossil-free.

Overall, I would believe that the last point is the single most important thing Sweden can do to live up to its commitments in the global climate work: to move from fossil to fossil-free energy sources. In that regard, nuclear power is naturally absolutely crucial. It is not possible to transition energy production so quickly while maintaining delivery and operational security goals in any other way.

Madam Speaker! I therefore move for the proposal in the report to be approved.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I was struck by a statement that Louise Eklund made in her speech. She said that Sweden has been self-sufficient in electricity before and that we had more nuclear power then. My very simple question is: When then?

Over the last ten years, we have had more exports than ever before. We have had a better trade balance for electricity since we closed the six reactors, because we have built out a lot of other things.

Sweden has, therefore, not been self-sufficient in electricity previously. But to clear this up, I would like to know what Louise Eklund bases that statement on. Can she mention when this occurred and what the export and import statistics looked like then, so that we can clear up this misunderstanding?

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank Rickard Nordin for the question.

There is no contradiction. I am pleased with the question and glad to have the opportunity to underline what I have spoken about today and on many other occasions: The solution for Sweden and for Europe is not about reducing contacts with other countries, cutting the cables, or in any other way reducing either the export or, for that matter, the import of electricity. We have an interconnected and linked energy system in all of Europe. It strengthens the Swedish resilience and resistance against all kinds of disruptions in our production. The same applies, naturally, for Europe as well. It does not need to stand in contradiction to other objectives.

I am very pleased that Rickard Nordin is raising this aspect. We liberal parties usually emphasize the importance of international contacts and exchanges, so also in the area of energy.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I can state that I received no answer. When was Sweden self-sufficient in electricity, as the Liberals said from the rostrum?

Swedish nuclear power was expanded during the 70s and 80s. We can look at the statistics. In the 70s, Sweden imported more than we exported. In the 80s, it was roughly even on the total. In the 90s, it went up quite a bit at some point and down at some point. The only time Sweden has been stably exporting is the last ten years. Does that correlate with the nuclear power shutdowns of the last ten years? How does this add up, according to Louise Eklund?

I also want to submit another question about something that I am very curious about and which the government does not account for. There is a lot of good talk about nuclear power, and nuclear power is in many ways an exciting energy source with good characteristics. But when you make the investments that the government wants to make with guaranteed prices, loans and so on, who is it then that is going to pay? The companies of course pay back the loans, but someone has to bear the cost. The companies themselves do not do that. Who is going to pay for these guaranteed prices? That is what I am very curious about.

I have, therefore, two questions. The Liberals and Louise Eklund said that Sweden has been self-sufficient in electricity previously, before we decommissioned nuclear power. My question is still: When then? The second question is: Who is going to pay for the guaranteed prices and the costs that it entails to build new nuclear power? It would have been very welcome to find out.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank Rickard Nordin very much for the clarification of the question. It feels like being in a quiz show with different answer options.

I emphasize again that there is no contradiction. Having the ability to be self-sufficient is a track that does not need to stand in contradiction to increased export or, for that matter, import. The point is that we as liberals have wanted to see a stronger interconnection between Swedish and European production and expansion, and that just this has also become the case.

It is clear that we have had the opportunity on several occasions previously to cut all cables. We have not done so, which I think is absolutely excellent. I hope that the Center Party also thinks that continued cooperation across national borders is necessary even in this area. A connection has occurred between Swedish and European production and the market. Therefore, it becomes a purely hypothetical question.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! This is the final budget debate of the mandate period, so it is quite appropriate to summarize Ebba Busch's and the Tidö parties' energy policy.

Everything would be solved with new nuclear power, we were told when Ebba Busch with a bang and a fuss left the energy agreement that was supposed to give Sweden long-term and stable rules for the benefit of not least the industry. The promises were thick during the election campaign. We will begin the construction of new nuclear power within 100 days, said Elisabeth Svantesson. It shall be built without state support, said Ulf Kristersson. Ten new reactors we shall have, said Romina Pourmokhtari. At least a first groundbreaking shall be taken before the end of the mandate period, said Ebba Busch in particular – only to then claim one or two months later that she had never said it. But there is a recording of it.

Soon the entire parliamentary term will have passed. The timeline for new nuclear power has completely collapsed. Principally nothing has happened, other than Vattenfall having settled on a technology choice. They still have not chosen a supplier and are speaking of an investment decision at the earliest in 2029. Furthermore, the government's ambitions for two large reactors by 2035 have shrunk to a tiny fraction. Vattenfall is now considering a small SMR reactor that potentially could be ready at the earliest in 2035. Add to that that current nuclear power projects within the EU have been delayed by at least ten years and that none of the suppliers that Vattenfall has been in dialogue with so far have built a single reactor.

Most evidence suggests that Sweden can receive any new nuclear power at the earliest after 2045, that is, after we are supposed to have achieved all our climate goals. The truth is that this government's nuclear power plans have been totally unrealistic. They have nothing to do with the climate transition, except that they possibly hinder it.

We can observe that what we need to expand is that which can deliver more electricity in the near term at a low cost: renewable energy and green baseload power. Ebba Busch has sometimes spoken about how the government welcomes all types of power, but nothing could be less true. Instead, we have been able to see how the Tidö parties have completely decimated the expansion of renewable energy.

Madam Speaker! When the three losing parties formed the Tidö Government and took over, the red-green government had significantly increased the expansion rate. We were then at over 3 gigawatts per year in power expansion. Now we see that the expansion rate is plummeting. The entire climate transition and the industry's green transition are collapsing under this government's policy. The expansion rate plummeted by 50 percent last year. According to the forecast, it is plummeting by a total of 75 percent this year. Perhaps it will be even worse next year.

How did we end up here? The reason is that the Tidö parties oppose renewable energy and lack a functioning energy and climate policy. They lack short-term goals for more energy and more capacity. Such goals could target 2030 and 2035. The Tidö parties block, through the veto, the majority of all wind power that could come before 2030. Between 70 and 100 percent, they say no, from the Liberals to SD, while the Green Party is the party that says most yes to wind power out in the municipalities.

We have pushed for compensation for municipalities and residents for over ten years, so it is pleasing that other parties have finally changed their minds. But what is it that is taking such a terribly long time? The municipalities are waiting for their money, and it has now been over one and a half years since it was announced that the municipalities would receive their money. It has been promised that it will happen before the turn of the year; the days can be counted down. Then remains the fact that many municipal politicians have already promised their voters to say no to wind power, not least because of the witch hunt that the Tidö parties drove against wind power during the election campaign.

At the same time, the conditions for solar power are worsening because the previous 60 öre for surplus electricity has been removed, which penalizes households that have invested in solar energy. The government has also lowered the green deduction in the middle of a recession, something which has likely increased unemployment.

The government has laid a dead hand over all offshore wind power, not least in the Baltic Sea, instead of giving the defense a mandate to coordinate with the energy interest. Furthermore, it is a crucial part of the total defense to be self-sufficient in energy.

The government has rejected 83 percent of all applications for offshore wind power that it has made decisions on. Furthermore, there is a large pile that it has not made decisions on. During the previous parliamentary term, 100 percent of the decisions made were positive.

As mentioned, several large offshore wind projects are currently on the government's desk. Some have been there since 2023, despite the county administrative board having said yes and the defense having no objections.

Only two of the projects, which are located in the Baltic Sea, would deliver the equivalent of two entire nuclear power plants and could be in place within ten years at half the cost.

In reality, one has also stopped the expansion of authorized offshore wind farms such as Kriegers flak by stopping Svenska kraftnät's expansion of submarine cables.

An additional wind farm could have pushed down electricity prices significantly in all of SE4 and Skåne and thus leveled out the electricity price differences that we see in the country.

Another smart way to press down electricity prices is energy efficiency. This is naturally for the one who carries out the measure, but also for others. An energy efficiency of 10 percent on the total is estimated to press down electricity prices by 50 percent and also has the environment as a winner.

What has happened then? The previous supports for energy efficiency have been abolished both for multi-family dwellings and for companies. The government assesses in its own energy plan that one does not even reach the EU's low energy efficiency targets for 2030.

A successful policy for energy efficiency could free up 25 terawatt-hours by 2030, equivalent to just over two large nuclear power plants. But even here, the Tidö parties are failing.

Instead, the electricity grid fees have skyrocketed without the expansion rate regarding the electricity grid actually having increased significantly. This is due to poor governance from the government. The responsible authority has for a long time pointed out that the electricity grid regulation needs to be improved.

Madam Speaker! As if this were not enough, Sweden currently lacks reserve power for the winter. It is a backup that is needed in critical situations. This is something that has failed to be procured. It is a real failure by the government.

Madam Speaker! Both Ebba Busch, Ulf Kristersson, and Romina Pourmokhtari have spoken very much about fossil-free status and electrification. But what does it look like in reality?

A good rule of thumb is to look at what people do rather than what they say. I looked at the Swedish Energy Agency's statistics for energy use and was then able to find that the energy source that has increased the most is fossil energy.

The annual usage has increased by 15 terawatt-hours 2022–2024. This can, of course, correlate with the fact that the government has spent a total of 57 billion on subsidizing fossil fuels instead of supporting electrification.

This is happening in a situation where Europe is spending more money on buying fossil fuels from Putin than on supporting Ukraine. By driving up fossil energy use, we are undermining our own security.

Both the electrification of the transport sector and the industry have slowed down significantly. I would like to assert that precisely the electrification is the government's greatest failure.

Madam Speaker! We need a new direction in energy policy. We need a government that takes Sweden's and Europe's security seriously by increasing the production of domestic sustainable fuels and electricity.

We need a government that takes industrial policy seriously and supports the industry through long-term thinking and stability, without a government base that laughs mockingly when important Swedish industrial projects go bankrupt.

We need a government that takes the climate threat seriously and offers sustainable alternatives at a low cost for both households and industry.

I also wish everyone a Merry Christmas!

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to Member Lakso for the speech!

The paradox for Miljöpartiet in the debate is the 10 gigawatts of green base power that are to be in place by 2030. It is quite soon, one could say.

In the green power mix, there should be some different components. Energy storage through hydrogen is one component. That has been talked about for a decade, and it does not yet exist. It is the same thing with pumped power. It is a technology that exists but on a minimal scale, one must still admit.

Flexibility through smart charging and the like does not contribute that much production. Then it is mentioned that one can increase the power in hydropower equivalent to several nuclear power plants.

It is worth noting that the optimistic calculations for optimizing the efficiency of hydropower say that in a good scenario we can get perhaps an extra 1,300 megawatts by 2035. To get up to 4,000 megawatts, there are a lot of years left. It will be tricky to get 10 gigawatts by 2030.

What remains in the green base power that Miljöpartiet proposes is then gas. My question to Linus Lakso is on the theme of environment and climate. What contributes to the lowest emissions, a nuclear power plant where we boil water or gas turbines where we burn hydrocarbons?

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question!

It is a bit ironic that Jesper Skalberg Karlsson chooses to criticize the investments in green base power, because that is exactly what the government is doing in the so-called Kraftlyftet: investments in exactly the same technologies. I am not quite sure if Jesper Skalberg Karlsson has read the government's own budget.

If it is so bad to invest in technologies that provide more effect in the short term, my counter-question is: Why are you investing tax money in that, if it is such a terribly bad idea? It seems a bit contradictory.

The 10 gigawatts that we have proposed as a power target are based on calculations that, among others, Vattenfall has made. Ellevio has made similar calculations and arrived at that need. Later, SVK also provided a calculation showing that we need to expand by approximately that amount of power to balance the system.

We have proposed a long series of technologies. It shall be a technology-neutral investment support. There are potential calculations from not least the Energy Markets Inspectorate. If one adds up the potentials regarding hydropower, combined heat and power, battery storage, flexibility and so on, it is possible to go well over 10 gigawatts.

My counter-question remains. If it is such a bad idea, why is the government now spending 1.7 billion on Kraftlyftet?

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe that flexibility, pumped storage, combined heat and power, gas turbines, etc. can be a complement. But it is precisely this: a complement.

According to the Green Party's calculation, 10 gigawatts are to be achieved in four years. I question the feasibility of that, because in the Green Party's proposal there is no new nuclear power, only the other alternatives, which at best are welcome complements.

My question concerns the order of magnitude. Sweden needs to double electricity production to approximately 300 terawatt-hours by 2045. Miljöpartiet's 10 gigawatts of green baseload, which in many cases is not baseload in production but batteries and gas turbines, would in the best case provide 30–40 terawatt-hours. Then we will be 10–15 percent of the way there.

The question is: What do we do then? Nuclear power produces electricity during 90 percent of the time year after year. It is a real baseload power that we would still have if it were not for the Green Party's policy. Preferably complements, but we also want reasonable proposals from the opposition. It is about 10 gigawatts where at most perhaps 1,300 megawatts is hydropower. The question is where the other 9 gigawatts are to come from. Is it gas turbines? In that case, 1.7 billion is not enough, but then completely different sums are needed.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! No, the government's 1.7 billion is not enough to expand the power system at a sufficient pace. That is why the Green Party has invested 6 billion in investments in green base power.

There is a great potential. The potential of batteries alone is estimated at 8 gigawatts, and gas turbines are quite fast to build – in a year. It is more a matter of an assessment of how much one wants to invest. The potential for energy production lies at 70–80 terawatt-hours within 10–15 years if one combines wind and solar. That is the realistic plan.

It is the Moderaterna who completely lack a realistic energy policy. New nuclear power may be in place in 20 years at the earliest, so it is a completely unrealistic answer to how we are to provide electricity to the industry at a reasonable price. The industry itself has calculated that one can deliver renewable energy plus green base load at an average price of approximately 55 öre.

There, one pays approximately triple the cost for the nuclear power that Jesper Skalberg Karlsson wants. If one builds out ten reactors with the subsidies he wants, it amounts to an additional cost for electricity of approximately 1,000 kronor a month per household. It is complete madness, and this is a completely unrealistic energy policy that is harmful to household finances, to Sweden's competitiveness, and to the climate transition.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Linus Lakso, for your speech, which contained quite a lot of visions from the Green Party's energy policy! That makes the differences compared to the government's policy clear. There was not much from the government's side that was good, according to the Green Party.

Let us look at how much production capacity has been installed in Sweden regarding electricity production from 2013 to 2024. It lands at almost 13,000 megawatts. These are actual basic facts. One can also look at how much of the installed production capacity we can utilize, i.e., the maximum electricity consumption. That is 340 megawatts.

What about the nearly 13,000 megawatts that have been added to the system? How much of that is actually base load, when four reactors have been removed? It is quite a lot of wind power that has been added to the system, but has it given bang for the buck? No, we have not received as much consumption as we can utilize.

I note that in the Green Party's budget we can read the following: On the government's table lie over 20 applications for offshore wind power and are awaiting a decision. In two years, the government has only approved two projects.

We Christian Democrats and the government welcome all positive forces. The reason it has gone so slowly with the other applications is that they are set against the interests of the Armed Forces or that they have not been able to bear their own costs. That is how it sometimes happens. Otherwise, we have proven that it is possible with more wind power without compromising the municipal veto, because we are working to build up acceptance from the local population.

My question to Miljöpartiet is: How many applications did you approve during your seven years in government?

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the questions!

We approved, as mentioned, one hundred percent of the applications that were submitted and that we managed to decide on during the previous mandate period.

This government has rejected 83 percent of the applications that have been decided upon. There are also about twenty that have not been decided upon and are lying on the government's table. The amount the government has said no to thus corresponds to the entirety of Sweden's energy consumption.

Madam Speaker! It is good that Camilla Brodin further points out the government's totally failed policy for electrification. The whole point of expanding electricity production is, in fact, that we are to use it for something. I believe we should use it to replace fossil energy, because it is good for the climate, for Sweden's competitiveness, and for our security.

During the past year, Sweden has had a historically large electricity surplus, where we export 39 terawatt-hours. It is absolutely good in some ways, because we are pushing out German and Polish coal power, unlike when the Alliance ruled, when Sweden on a many-year basis was dependent on the import of precisely German and Polish coal power. Miljöpartiet saw to it that this was corrected.

The big problem, however, is the failed policy for electrification, where we see that things are going in the wrong direction within the transport sector. Scania and Volvo are ready and have developed heavy electric trucks, but the government has ruined the entire domestic market by favoring the fossil fuels instead of favoring electrification. Here we are left with masses of renewable and fossil-free electricity that we would need to use to transition. But the government's policy makes this impossible.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! I am not quite getting the hang of all this, and I think the member from Miljöpartiet and I are talking past each other.

The Green Party approved zero applications for offshore wind farms. They failed to get any offshore wind power in place at all, while simultaneously being involved in actively decommissioning six of the twelve nuclear reactors.

Furthermore, we can observe that Miljöpartiet wants to spend 13 billion more on this expenditure area while not including the nuclear power program. It is therefore gone from Miljöpartiet's budget.

There is actually no serious consideration of the electricity system as a whole, of the taxpayers or of the climate when it comes to how the calculation can be made to work.

My question – or perhaps plea – to Linus Lakso is: Why can't you become a bit more like in Finland? We often take up Finland as a good example. The Finnish Green League has cracked the code and realized that nuclear power is crucial for the climate transition.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! It was one of many bold claims in this debate that Camilla Brodin has now made. She speaks of economic responsibility. In the budget, the government issues no less than 840 billion total in subsidies and credit guarantees to a single category. It is radically much more expensive than the Green Party's initiatives.

One of the large budget items is the investment in green base power. We are allocating more than three times as much as the government on this, and it is demanded by the industry and necessary for the power system.

The second thing we spend a lot of money on is energy efficiency. As I mentioned, it is incredibly smart.

If we press down the electricity demand by 10 percent, one can push down the electricity price by 50 percent. Calculations have shown that households can save up to 100 billion per year.

The question is rarely about how much money one invests, even though you waste significantly more, but rather about how effective the investments are and what they yield. Your nuclear power investments are approximately three times as expensive and will not be completed within a reasonable timeframe at all.

Regarding the offshore wind, we approved Kriegers flak. It would have been of incredibly great use if it had been completed. But this has been effectively stopped by the government. Unlike what we agreed upon in the previous energy agreement, namely that Svenska kraftnät's mandate to expand the power cables would be removed, it is now instead to be built power cables to Norrbotten to level out the power balance. It is quite foolish and inefficient when not least SE4 and Skåne need cheaper electricity here and now.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 16 December.)

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