Energy policy

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker and colleagues! Last Monday, April 28, at 12:33, an event occurred that should cause several of my opposition colleagues to quite significantly reconsider their energy policy.

A disturbance occurred within the Spanish power grid, which led to a total grid collapse. It was a unique event, which led to enormous societal disruptions and costs. The Spanish equivalent to Svenska kraftnät has so far established that this was rooted in the weather-dependent power.

Madam Speaker! Disturbances obviously occur. It is inevitable. It can be lightning strikes, short circuits in substations, or power plants that shut down. The important thing is to have a robust system with a sufficiently large amount of inertia to be able to handle disturbances. Spain did not have that, because for several years Spain has pushed in amounts of weather-dependent production that lack inertia, while simultaneously reducing planned production. When the disturbance occurred, margins were lacking to limit the extent, and the collapse became a fact within a few seconds.

Madam Speaker! This event was not unforeseen; it was, on the contrary, quite expected. Engineers and authorities in both Sweden and other EU countries have warned of this. In recent years, several incidents have occurred in Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark that have nearly led to the collapse of the power grid. Every time, it has been due to a large amount of weather-dependent power in relation to predictable base load.

This incident should make every opposition party go back to the drawing board and turn their energy policy upside down. In today's debate, we are handling motions where the Centerpartiet wants to force in 88,000 megawatts of weather-dependent power, Miljöpartiet 74,000 megawatts, and Vänsterpartiet 30,000 megawatts. The Socialdemokraterna are restrained in relation to this and want "only" to double the amount of wind power.

My colleagues in the parties to the left have now seen in black and white what the consequences of their own policy entail. Will they now take responsibility, Madam Speaker, and shape a policy that is instead based on the knowledge we have of the power system and try to build a power system that benefits companies, citizens, and Sweden?

The Moderate-led government and our colleagues the Christian Democrats, the Liberals, and the Sweden Democrats are now restructuring the energy policy in order to rebuild a functioning, stable, and clean electricity system. We have for a long time chosen to listen to the engineers and the experts so that we can avoid electricity catastrophes similar to Spain's.

Madam Speaker! I must briefly touch upon a number of historical facts. I mention this only because it plays an enormous role for both the current situation and the future, and for the handling here and now, that all of this has been done. Over a period of 20 years, the Social Democrats, with the help of the Green Party and the Centre Party, and with the willing assistance of the Left Party, dismantled Swedish nuclear power. Thereby, the world's best electricity system was shattered.

Twelve climate-smart, high-producing nuclear reactors have become six. Every other one disappeared. At the same time, the red-greens stopped Vattenfall's plans to build two new reactors at Ringhals in 2014, which otherwise would have been ready to be put into operation approximately just today.

In addition to dismantling nuclear power with obvious consequences for both the climate and electricity prices, they also hindered both combined heat and power and hydropower through a series of new and increased taxes – which we abolished just a few weeks after we took office in 2022 – and through permit processes aimed at tearing out large amounts of electricity-producing hydropower.

Magdalena Andersson spent eight years in government dismantling the foundation for Swedish electricity production and now wants a new government to completely clean up after her in three years.

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

The bitter and very frustrating truth is that under the previous government it was quick to tear down the world's best energy system, but unfortunately it takes a long time to rebuild it. I understand the frustration that many people express, especially in electricity area 4 and 3 where I myself live.

Madam Speaker! Has there been any change during these years of the Tidö cooperation's policy? I can give an answer to that. Yes, in fact, an incredible amount has happened. This has been a head start in all parts. And no, Madam Speaker, it is not an exaggeration.

The Moderates and our Tidö colleagues do not give up just because we have been dealt a bad hand. We have the goal clearly set: to recreate the robust and long-term sustainable power system that every Swede deserves and expects.

The Tidös agreement began with the most fundamental. We introduced a security of supply goal – a goal that says we shall ensure that energy will be available for people and companies where they need it, when they need it. It shall therefore not only be when the wind blows and the sun shines. To this, we have made a decision to begin planning for energy and power requirements both nationally and regionally. That this has not happened previously is somewhat incredible.

Something even more incredible, Madam Speaker, is that the opposition voted no to all of this. Without this foundation, there is nothing for the future to stand on. What the opposition is saying is in plain terms that certain power sources should only deliver electricity when they feel like it. The opposition has opposed a requirement that all power sources shall deliver electricity around the clock, every hour of the year – obviously with exceptions for repairs and overhauls. All of this they have opposed.

Then I have only one thing to say: The different power limits are therefore there for the power system, for industry and for households – not the other way around. It is not the power system, households and industry that should have to adapt to the power limits, but the power limits that should exist for society's need for electricity. The power system is also not a charity organization for the power limits.

We have previously removed the Social Democratic and Centre Party penalty taxes on combined heat and power, which specifically hit electricity production. The government has also saved Öresundsverket in Malmö from being sold and shipped to Asia. The plant was officially reopened on Monday and now stands ready to deliver 450 megawatts of electricity to Skåne, where it is needed most.

Öresundsverket was also a victim of the Social Democratic government's desire to phase out all planned electricity production in Sweden in general and in Skåne in particular. We have taken a very large step towards a more operationally secure system.

We have streamlined the permit processes for building the electricity grid. The lead time has been reduced from 14 to 8 years, and we naturally want to reduce it even further.

Investments in the power grid are also hitting records. Last year, we broke the previous record from the Alliance era. Older lines are being renovated and new ones are being built to improve transmission capacity.

The biggest change has occurred for nuclear power – the pillar of southern Sweden's energy supply. Today, after several decades, it is once again permitted to build nuclear power plants in Skåne. A region that has been starved of predictable power under red-green rule now has the opportunity to, in the long term, begin producing its own reliable, predictable electricity again.

In addition to this, work is ongoing within our agencies to improve the conditions and regulatory framework for new nuclear power. Another madness from the previous red-green government was that nuclear power research was completely deleted from the budget. Furthermore, one was forbidden to even think about new nuclear power. All research was financed by the opposed and strangled Swedish nuclear power industry – but no longer. Now there are 100 million kronor per year earmarked for nuclear power research and an additional 100 million for pilot and demonstration projects.

But the government does not focus solely on nuclear power, even though the opposition wants to make it appear so. We are also strengthening the economic incentives for municipalities to build wind power, a decision that has broad support in the Riksdag. There does, however, seem to be a difference: While several parties in the opposition seem to focus on millions for municipal operations, we focus on the individual human being.

The most important thing about the local compensation is that the Swedes who are negatively affected by wind power establishments receive something for it. That the government continues to work on compensation to neighbors and for lost property values is very welcome.

Last but not least, we are improving local power production through the so-called Kraftlyftet. In this budget, we take a major step forward and introduce an investment support for everything that can strengthen the power balance where the situation is worst, in electricity area 4 and 3 in general, and in Skåne and Västra Götaland in particular. Investment in electricity production, heat storage, or efficiency improvements does not matter – everything that improves the situation is welcome. This support extends until 2035. Combined heat and power and gas turbines are one of the few ways to increase planned capacity in the short term and press down prices – in particular, as mentioned, in Skåne and Västra Götaland.

Madam Speaker! This government is building the foundation for a well-functioning power system. With a focus on stability, availability, and electricity production that is there and when you need it, we are building the foundation for the future of Sweden.

Against this stands a fragmented opposition that oscillates between German energy policy and no policy at all. The Center Party wants to stop the decommissioning of small-scale hydropower. The Green Party is investing 50 million to decommission everything much faster. The Green Party, on the other hand, wants to reduce the tax on combined heat and power. At the same time, the Left Party wants to increase it. The Left wants to abolish the municipal veto – it is unclear whether this has been negotiated with the Center Party. The Center, on its part, wants to build new export cables to the continent to increase exports. At the same time, the Social Democrats are taking a stand behind the Moderates' line to stop the new export cable to Germany.

The alternative to Tidösamarbetets stable and future-building energy policy is a chaotic mishmash where, just as before – if the expression is excused, Madam Speaker – one goes at our Swedish power system like more or less insane butchers.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker: The opposition is dismayed. It is divided and has no overall grasp whatsoever. It does not finance its own proposals, and the evidence that its one-sided focus on wind power harms society is overwhelming.

Fortunately, there is a united, reality-based cooperation with a majority in Sweden's Riksdag. The Tidö cooperation has a thoroughly worked-out energy policy that creates a long-term, well-functioning power system and a better future for Sweden and all of us who live, reside, and work here.

I would like to conclude by moving for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

In this speech, Tobias Andersson and Josef Fransson (both SD) and Camilla Brodin (KD) agreed.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is almost impressive – the member manages to stand and orate for over 13 minutes, and in principle not a word that comes out of the member's mouth is true.

When the red-green government handed over power, we had Europe's lowest electricity prices, Europe's largest electricity surplus, and the most environmentally friendly produced electricity, to name a few examples. We were appointed by an international organization to have the world's best energy system.

On the other hand, we have an energy system in transition. It needs to be changed, developed, and expanded. How is it going for Mats Green and his government in that matter? It is a complete failure.

When we handed over power in 2022, we had reached an expansion rate of 3 gigawatts per year. Now the expansion is collapsing. It has decreased by another 50 percent this year and is predicted to decrease sharply next year.

What is happening in reality, Mats Green, is therefore exactly the opposite of what you are standing here and saying. The expansion of fossil-free energy is slowing down significantly.

What Sweden has in common with Spain is that we have a lot of renewable energy and therefore also low electricity prices. What is not true is that it has been established what the error in Spain was due to.

We had a similar situation in England in 2019. Then, self-appointed experts and know-it-alls like Mats Green were quickly out swinging. Of course, the blame was placed on renewable energy. In the end, however, it turned out to be a conventional power plant that caused the error.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! I think Linus Lakso should look at what happened in both Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark. Their counterparts to Svenska kraftnät have stated that it was due to too much, sometimes only, weather-dependent energy in the power system.

Then Linus Lakso stands here and claims that we had Europe's lowest energy and electricity prices. Yes, we probably still do. But have the prices increased or decreased since the Green Party sat at the helm? They have decreased in all electricity areas, but not enough. Skåne is now completely surrendered to a Green Party-style energy policy, with all that entails. They only have weather-dependent power that only delivers electricity when it feels like it.

Miljöpartiet has opposed nuclear power. They have opposed combined heat and power. They have campaigned for that Skåne should never again be allowed to have predictable base power. I can think it is quite bold to say that Sweden would have zero problems with only weather-dependent power in the system – which we certainly do not have, but Miljöpartiet is doing everything to ensure we get there.

And so they idealize a power system like Germany's, where they have actually implemented the Green Party's vision. What were the consequences for the environment and the climate? Well, they have become more dependent on coal, oil, and gas. That is the bitter, harsh reality.

If Sweden is to meet the climate goals, nuclear power is a very large part of the answer. It is definitely not the only answer, but a very large part of the answer. If you want Germany's power system, you also get Germany's prices and Germany's emissions, and those are not what we want.

Once again: Miljöpartiet has handed over Skåne to only weather-dependent power. Consequently, Skåne has extremely volatile and high electricity prices. They need to get more predictable base load.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is a pure lie that we idealize Germany's energy system. We are very satisfied with the foundation of the energy system we have in Sweden. On the other hand, much more was needed. We need more power, as Mats Green spoke about. The problem is only that it is a pure sham that the government or Mats Green's party have a policy for it at all. There are basically no funds set aside to increase the incentives for dispatchable power. They are peanuts.

The entire initiative is also a direct copy of the Green Party's policy, contrary to what Mats Green claims. We had an initiative called Kraftsteget, with the same content. Then Mats Green comes along and calls it Kraftlyftet and pretends that it is moderate policy.

However, there is no goal at all regarding how much dispatchable power we should have, and that also includes Skåne. Therefore, we will not get more dispatchable power with this government. We will also not get lower electricity prices in Skåne. For this, many cheap kilowatt-hours are needed, and we can get those through solar power and wind power.

Mats Green and his party stop it in approximately 80 percent of cases when one wants to expand wind power, and it is certainly a higher figure in Skåne. It is precisely the opposite, that is to say, it is moderate politics that hinders lower electricity prices in electricity price area 4.

Let me mention something about Spain. What is suspected there is that it is a case of a so-called N minus 2 error – when two large errors occur simultaneously. This has actually also happened in Sweden. In recent years, we have been close to an absolute system collapse in Sweden in connection with two nuclear power plants being tripped simultaneously due to an electrical fault in a substation. It shows rather that large production sources that can quickly fall out are a problem that can cause blackouts.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! Discussing environmental policy or energy policy with the Green Party can sometimes be a bit difficult. The Green Party lives in its own parallel universe.

I return to the base load in Skåne. If the Green Party's reasoning had been correct, that is to say that weather-dependent power delivers the lowest electricity prices, Skåne would have had the lowest electricity prices in Sweden, not the highest. Evidentially, it is completely wrong.

I applaud that Miljöpartiet has changed its mind regarding base load. Now it is called green base load. We already have green base load in Sweden, namely combined heat and power, hydropower and nuclear power. Previously, the technical significance of base load has been denied and there has only been a desire to speak about weather-dependent power. Now, Miljöpartiet has nevertheless yielded a little to the laws of nature and technical facts.

So, that was the question about Spain. There were two errors. So far, Spain's equivalent to Svenska kraftnät has said that the outage was due to the weather-dependent power; they are unable to handle it. Linus Lakso can look at the authority's statements.

If the Green Party's cardinal argument that weather-dependent power is fast and cheap were true, Skåne and electricity price area 4 would have had the lowest electricity prices in Sweden, not the highest. I can also remind you that thanks to all the measures in the short and long term that the government has taken, there are lower electricity prices in all electricity areas than at the change of power in 2022. Linus Lakso can deny it, but facts are facts.

We must not risk letting Miljöpartiet loose in Sweden's power system again. We saw how it went last time, and we know how it will go in the future.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank Mats Green for his speech.

I did not intend to request the floor, but the lies are becoming so numerous. It is a pity that the school class disappeared out.

I will start with the reactors. I can go so far as to say that the first reactor was redeemed. It was clearly a political decision, but much also depended on pressure from the Danes. There was one additional reactor where I can go so far as to say that political pressure meant that even that one disappeared.

I take the Social Democrats' defense this time when it is said that everything is their fault. I have previously said that it would be fun to see the nose grow every time one lies. It is a pity that it does not work that way.

Since then, I have something additional to say. Mats Green claims that Skåne would have the lowest prices if they agreed to weather-dependent electricity. Look at where the cables out in the world are located, Mats Green, when we export the most. They go from price area 4. We import the high prices, because they want our electricity and are prepared to pay significantly more than we would need, if we separate the export prices.

Somewhere there is a limit to how one can express oneself. Everyone listening understands that this is a matter of politics, but there is a limit to how much one can lie and try to stick something on. There are things where we agree with the Moderaterna, and I can come to them if I get the chance.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! I also said in my speech that it is not only the Social Democrats' fault. the Left Party also has its part in this, and the Centre Party definitely has its part in this.

Centerpartiet's three contributions to Swedish energy policy over 50 years have been thought-exercises, thought-prohibitions, and dogmatism. Both Social Democrats, Left Party members, Green Party members, and Center Party members naturally have their part in this. To now hear Birger Lahti deny it becomes ironic given the May Day speeches last week. The Left Party, Birger Lahti's party, usually regularly in its May Day speeches takes some of the credit for the Swedish nuclear phase-out.

If I lie, then you lie in your May Day speeches. There are those who would say that you do. I do not do it, but I can say that if I lie, then you lie.

Now Birger Lahti stands there and claims that the majority of the nuclear power that has been shut down happened because of the market, which is so loathsome to him. How is the Left Party supposed to handle that? Have you been involved in phasing out Swedish nuclear power, or was it the market? That is what you say in your own first-of-May speeches.

Birger Lahti stands here and denies the obvious fact. Let me reflect: Nuclear power in Sweden has thus only been decommissioned under Social Democratic governments, and not a single reactor has been decommissioned under a Moderate-led government. Is Birger Lahti seriously saying that this is merely a coincidence?

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank Mats Green for the exchange of remarks.

It pleases me if Mats Green has listened more to our May 1st speeches than I have myself. I do not know where one has been proud that we were going to have closed reactors.

I can go as far as to say that the market has closed four reactors and politics perhaps two. But one should not stick on that it has always been Social Democratic governments.

Why does it become like that? I am very glad that the Moderaterna have not sat in government while this has been done. Maybe there is some statistics there.

Then it was the question of reliability. The Moderates were part of an energy agreement in 2016. It was not forbidden to think nuclear power in that agreement. What happened? Well, one wanted to replace a word, but the investors did not flock to build nuclear power by replacing the word. I do not give much for that government's and the Moderates' reliability regarding energy policy.

Then there was the question of the price of electricity. We will continue to debate energy policy, and I hope everyone listens to where we are headed if the government gets through everything it wants. I can understand that nuclear power has its place, but how large and how much remains to be seen. But for this government, it has become a religion that nuclear power will solve everything. Contrary to nuclear power, renewable technology is moving forward, and everyone knows that.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! My party has been consistent regarding energy policy for 50 years. Actually, Birger Lahti's party has been as well, even though Birger Lahti stands here and tries to convince the assembly and the audience that one has not been consistent, that one absolutely has had no part in the decommissioning of nuclear power – despite belonging to line 3 and that a number of left-party party leaders boast of having contributed to decommissioning Swedish nuclear power. That says quite a lot about how far the debate has come in Sweden. That which one has applauded, one now wants to distance oneself from and run as far away from as is possible.

The Left has always been opposed to nuclear power, and will always be opposed to nuclear power. It is a fact that Birger Lahti shall embrace and be honest and clear about.

I also have quite a few questions regarding the Left's energy policy. The Left's largest individual initiative is that they are to increase the transmission capacity from Norrland to southern Sweden. Birger Lahti is himself from Norrland but says in principle that the electricity will not be needed in Norrland, for industrial initiatives there, but that it is better instead to ship it to southern Sweden.

We say the opposite: that southern Sweden can solve a large part of its own energy challenges by rebuilding nuclear power. That was, after all, how my parents' generation brilliantly planned Sweden's power system – nuclear power in the south and large-scale hydropower in the north.

So, what is the Left Party's proposal regarding all of this? Yes, Birger Lahti, you want to shut down nuclear power. You want to tax away district heating, and you want to dismantle hydropower.

If one wants to step in to destroy the world's best electricity system, one should do exactly that. Let us not go down that path again! Sweden's industry cannot handle it, and above all, Sweden's welfare cannot handle it.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating one of our time's greatest and most important issues: energy policy. The Tidö parties have a well-functioning cooperation in this area, but there are nevertheless a couple of reservations from the Sverigedemokraterna in this report. I therefore wish to move for approval of our reservation number 6 under point 3, Other matters regarding the direction of energy policy.

Madam Speaker! Energy issues constituted a large part of the 2022 election campaign. The focus was primarily on a struggle between power sources. On one side of the election campaign was nuclear power, where the Tidö parties clearly highlighted our view on the matter, and on the other side was wind power. I contend that it was a somewhat simplified media description of the dynamics that exist in the energy policy area.

In an election campaign, it is naturally significantly easier for both those who follow politics and those who report on politics to boil it down to a struggle within politics between nuclear power and wind power. Instead, one could try to convey the differences, the capabilities, and which system solutions or system challenges these two types of power, or for that matter all types of power, can generate. This would result in more nuanced reporting.

Furthermore, a large part of the election campaign was characterized by the debate on the decommissioning of nuclear power, which we also heard in the debate here earlier between the Moderaternas Mats Green and both Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet. One side thinks that nuclear power was decommissioned because it could not sustain itself and was not standing on its own feet and that the market closed nuclear power. The other side claims, according to me very correctly, that it was political decisions that prompted six reactors to be decommissioned in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! I would like to ask a somewhat rhetorical question. One of the first things we did when we came to power was to remove the legal restrictions that existed for nuclear power, namely that it could not be in more than three locations and not be more than ten reactors. The rhetorical question becomes whether it was politics or the market that introduced these laws. I want to argue that it was this chamber, but not exactly my party. We make those types of decisions, not the market. That is how we enact laws in Sweden.

I think that debate should be dead. But it obviously is not. It might continue here today, despite the Riksrevisionen's report on the area.

Much has happened since the election, even if the debate here today sounds like it did during the election campaign. The Tidö parties have achieved a lot in the energy policy area, even though there is much left to do and certain political trenches are still to be found.

For natural reasons, these questions have been prioritized during our time in power. In the now-famous Tidö Agreement, which laid the foundation for the shift in power in Swedish politics, there is a chapter on precisely climate and energy. I will therefore touch upon some of what can be read there on the subject.

We begin by describing that within the collaborative project Climate and Energy, we shall carry out reforms to solve societal problems with a secure and safe energy supply in the short and long term. Then there is a wealth of concrete proposals concerning, among other things,

conditions for investments in new nuclear power

an investigation of the restart of dispatchable electricity production in southern Sweden

a new energy policy goal

new rules for the electricity market

how we shall govern authorities, state agencies and the research direction on the theme

What legislative changes are needed for new nuclear power

what conditions are needed for combined heat and power

what conditions are needed for hydropower and so on.

On all these points, we have either already delivered or are in a position to deliver.

Madam Speaker! It is hardly surprising that the Tidö parties have therefore continued to work with exactly what is stated in the Tidö Agreement. Now that we are doing precisely what we said we would do, it generates criticism from both the opposition and various commentators and thinkers. At times, the media attempts to portray certain energy policy decisions as bad or undesirable, which they perhaps are in the relevant editorial office.

Let me therefore be clear: the Tidö parties' energy policy does not stem from our political opponents' opinions, ideas, or ideologies. The Tidö parties' energy policy does not stem from Aftonbladet's or Dagens Nyheter's opinions, ideas, or ideologies. The Tidö parties' energy policy does not stem from the opinions, ideas, or ideologies of special interests or politically driven academics.

The Tidö parties' energy policy is based on the mandate that the voters gave us on election day. The message the Swedish people gave us on election day was that they had grown tired of an energy policy that even the Swedish National Audit Office confirms as lacking in its consistency analysis and lacking an understanding of the system as a whole. The message the Swedish people gave us on election day was that they wanted to see a reorganization of the energy policy, an understanding of the system perspective, and an opportunity to have nuclear power even in the future.

It is from this message and this mandate that we have shaped our energy policy and continue to deliver in the area. Some seem surprised by this. Some seem to want to reconsider or overrule the voters' message. Some seem to believe they know better than the voters and thus the Swedish people. This phenomenon becomes clearest when it comes to nuclear power.

Madam Speaker! I will have the opportunity to elaborate on my view on nuclear power in the upcoming debate on nuclear power financing and safety in the exchanges of remarks after this speech. I therefore do not need to delve further into this.

I can instead lift my gaze and state that for the first time since the electricity system in Sweden was built out with the hydropower and nuclear power that have formed the backbone, not only of our electricity supply but also for Swedish industry, Swedish prosperity, and Swedish welfare, we are now once again looking at the system as a whole. It is a perspective and a focus that has been missing in Swedish energy policy for decades, regardless of party affiliation or bloc.

It has been reinforced through the so-called energy policy orientation bill, which we passed in the chamber about a year ago. There, we have a planning goal of 300 terawatt-hours in 2045 to meet the estimated needs highlighted by authorities and industry, as well as a security of supply goal. This reads: "The Swedish electricity system shall have the ability to deliver electricity where demand exists, at the right time and in sufficient quantity, to the extent that it is socio-economically efficient. Unjustified obstacles in the electricity system shall be removed to create conditions for an efficient market that promotes competitive prices."

Regarding the latter, it is, as said, the first time in decades that politics takes that type of holistic grip on the area. One can absolutely think that it would have been reasonable for all parties in this chamber to have agreed that it would be good if politics worked to ensure that there is electricity in the place where it is needed, at the time it is needed, and to the extent it is needed. But not even that could all opposition parties stand behind here in the chamber. It is such a fundamental basis for what view one has on the needs when it comes to electricity and energy. One does not think that such a fundamental physical fact or such a political ambition should be prevailing. Instead, one opposes this, even though we in all eight parties have sat down with industry representatives and explained – or at least tried to explain – to the opposition the value of the security of supply goal.

I can take the opportunity to link this theme to the reservation I voted in favor of, namely reservation 6. We wish to ensure security of supply even while waiting for new nuclear power. In the short term, we see an increased need for various balancing and flexibility services. In this context, we want to emphasize gas turbines as an extremely realistic and reasonable solution. If gas turbines are built and used correctly in the Swedish electricity system, the current problems with both electricity and power shortages as well as low transmission capacity can be resolved within a few years. Gas turbines are fast-starting and flexible, and they can switch between gas and liquid fuel if they are technically prepared for it.

Against this background and with the work that has been initiated, we can state that Öresundsverket was almost symbolically restarted this week. In addition to gas power in the short term, we also see a much-needed increase in power in various ways. Not least, an update and a generational shift within hydropower and an ensuring of support services for combined heat and power can generate this.

Madam Speaker! I want to assert that in politics we need to focus on both the long and the short term. That is where the focus should lie, and not between the power strikes. What do we do in the long term, where nuclear power is the pillar? What do we do in the short term, where not least gas power, combined heat and power, and hydropower can fulfill a larger function? Then politics must also ensure these opportunities. This has been initiated, not least through legislative changes, through taxes that have disappeared, and through Kraftlyftet which now exists and will likely be strengthened.

In this speech, Josef Fransson (SD), Mats Green (M), and Camilla Brodin (KD) agreed.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! This is an energy policy debate, and not just a power generation debate. I therefore intended to ask Tobias Andersson a bit about the Swedish electricity grids.

At this point, the work begins to set the framework for the next regulatory period, i.e., the rules that will apply. This sounds quite technical, but in practice, it is about the bills the Swedish people receive for the electricity grid. Assessments are being made that we will need to invest nearly 1,000 billion in the electricity grid until 2045.

Today, 97 percent goes to new investments in the grid, and approximately 3 percent goes to efficiency improvements. It is simply because the regulation is structured that way. One gets the most money if one does the most expensive thing, that is to say, new investments.

Centerpartiet has proposed that we should instead have the same principle as for other infrastructure: a four-step principle where one works from the premise of first perhaps avoiding certain needs, then streamlining what we have, and finally doing what is actually most expensive, that is, building new. This should, of course, be done with land-efficient technology, and we should utilize the opportunities we have so that we do not make such large encroachments as we do today.

My question to Tobias Andersson is actually quite simple. What is the Sweden Democrats' solution so that we do not get these 1,000 billion kronor in new investments when we do not need to do it and there are effective ways to do it? What proposals do SD and the government have to ensure that we keep costs down for households when it comes to the electricity grid?

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Rickard Nordin for the question.

We can see how the Tidö parties have initiated this. In Gothenburg, which Rickard Nordin himself is from, if I remember correctly, a collaboration is now taking place between Svenska kraftnät, Göteborgs Energi and nearby industry to see how Kraftlyftet can be utilized. This is occurring, not least, to increase the capacity to connect more weather-dependent power – which I know Rickard Nordin is a great supporter of. It is also occurring so that one does not have to build more grid by instead seeing if one can supply more power through, for example, additional gas turbines.

Madam Speaker! I also highlighted in my speech that we, through well-placed power increases through gas power, hydropower or other, can increase the capacity and thereby reduce the need for new grids, because we can obtain an increased transmission capacity if these are located in a reasonable manner. That is perhaps the somewhat technical answer to the somewhat technical question. If I am allowed to elaborate on the whole further, we also have, as the members know, an SOU that is being prepared against the background of the so-called Germany judgment. It will review this more at a regulatory level when it comes to what revenue frameworks should exist and how one can be compensated and not.

I absolutely believe that there are conditions to emulate other countries more in terms of creating incentives for the electricity companies to streamline their own infrastructure. We have neighboring countries that provide a type of support incentive for those who have an efficient and small overhead – or whatever we choose to call it – in relation to those who build faster.

It is also very much about permit processes that need to be simplified, because a large part of the cost gets stuck there. The parties that now govern Sweden have already begun the work in this area.

I feel that I have now answered the question in several ways, but I will let Rickard Nordin continue the debate.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! It sounds as if SD and the Center Party have quite similar views on this. It will, of course, be somewhat up to proof to implement these measures and ensure that this is included in the next rules period, for that time is short. It is something that must be established during this mandate period. It is therefore not possible to postpone things and think that we will see what the outcome was later.

I also expect that there will be much stronger steering towards efficiency compared to what is being done today. Today, it is only new investments because that is simply what they make money on. I understand that the companies do so, because it is cost-optimal for them even if it is inefficient for society as a whole.

There is one thing I didn't quite get an answer on. If I'm honest, perhaps I didn't ask a sufficiently clear question either. It concerns this issue with space-saving technology. We know that the intrusion is quite large when we build the large power lines. It obviously goes very well to bury them in the Stockholm area. Ellevio has, for example, done it at the regional grid level, and they make a big deal out of the fact that they are doing it and that it is successful and accomplished.

When we go out to the countryside, people are not at all interested in burying [cables], even though it should obviously be even easier to do there. It is less complicated. Is that something to look at? I don't mean just burying, but other types of technology that are more space-saving which one could also imagine including in the new regulation.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I know that Rickard Nordin is interested in these issues, but I will not deliberate here on where or how technology choices should be made. On the other hand, we have already changed the ordinance to facilitate technology choices and shorten the permit processes for the expansion of the electricity grid. I leave it up to other actors and authorities to choose exactly which kilometer should be above ground and which should be underground.

I, however, find it difficult to understand the interest the member is now showing for the issue. The member represents a party that wants to subsidize the connection to offshore wind. When our department has calculated this, we are talking about hundreds of billions that would be diverted from those who earn money from the power to us electricity customers.

Rickard Nordin opened the debate by expressing concern about what costs our policy would have for the electricity grid collective – when his policy and his government base want Swedish electricity grid customers to subsidize when foreign companies are to come and build offshore wind power in Sweden. I find that completely incomprehensible.

Furthermore, it is the case that Rickard Nordin belongs to a government base that wants to double wind power – or increase it even more, who knows? Miljöpartiet wants 30 terawatt-hours of solar by 2030. That would strain our power grid. It would destroy our electricity system. The need for expansion of the power grid and for regulating power to manage meeting that type of weather-dependent amount in our electricity system would mean an enormous cost for all of us who pay electricity grid bills. It is the threat to the power grid collective – not that we, through our policy, do what we can to shorten permit processes, facilitate power increases, and find flexible solutions on how we can invest in the power grid that needs to be expanded in the cheapest possible way.

In this speech, Josef Fransson (SD) agreed.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating one of the most decisive policy areas for Sweden's future – our energy supply. It is the foundation for a living society, our welfare, our security, and our climate transition.

Energy supply is more than just infrastructure. It is about direction, about movement. How the energy system looks today tells us something about where we have been. The decisions we make in here tell us where we are headed. Energy policy is therefore, above all, about leadership, about responsibility, and about our vision.

Madam Speaker! We Christian Democrats have watched with concern how the energy issue has for too long been characterized by ideology rather than realism. We have seen how nuclear reactors, built with Swedish engineering, political decisiveness, and faith in the future, have been dismantled. That was not done because our technology and knowledge were insufficient, but because public opinion shifted. The Social Democrats turned their coats, and planned [nuclear] was replaced with renewable. They followed the opinion-makers rather than the thinkers.

The 2000s have truly been a strange time for energy policy. It has been a time when climate alarmism, political correctness, and ideological anxiety have been given more space than technical competence and common sense. Symbol politics took over where objectivity should have prevailed, and despite having a steady course, we began to doubt ourselves, our history, and our own ability.

But that is not the Swedish identity. Sweden is and has always been a country of inventors, builders, engineers and problem-solvers. Our ancestors took us from poverty to prosperity, from emigration to immigration, from cold to warmth through work, initiative and cooperation. It is that narrative we need to reconnect with and remind each other of.

Madam Speaker! When I read the report, I am struck by how much consensus there is, despite everything, in the energy issues. Most often we highlight issues where we disagree, but point by point, there is a stable majority that agrees with one another.

We agree that Sweden needs much more fossil-free electricity production, not least for our competitiveness, growth, and climate transition, and that companies in Sweden need long-term perspective, security, and clear rules of the game to be able to invest. We also agree that we need the full palette: wind power, hydropower, solar power, combined heat and power, gas turbines, and batteries. Even nuclear power has today a broad majority here in the chamber that sees its value in the energy mix.

Still, many fall into the same trap. Our energy supply is reduced to political positioning. Energy policy leads to stagnation instead of a movement forward.

For example, the government is often met with criticism regarding "tunnel vision," of only seeing nuclear power. This is a false accusation because it is actually about restoring the playing field. Nuclear power has operated under distorted conditions for decades. It has been opposed politically, legally, and economically.

The government is now correcting the historical mistakes that have been made, not to favor nuclear power but to give it the same opportunity as other types of power to contribute to the future's electricity system. No one opposes that more alternatives should be investigated, regardless of how the opposition wants to make it appear. We just need to start somewhere. We need to get moving. Investment in nuclear power does not exclude investment in other types of power.

Madam Speaker! To broaden the perspective from nuclear power, I can remind that the government is working broadly with measures for the entire energy system. So far, nearly 70 concrete measures have been implemented. We have abolished the waste incineration tax for combined heat and power, something that directly strengthens the possibility of extracting more electricity and heat where it is needed. We have introduced support to municipalities to increase local acceptance for wind power, a concrete way to increase both production and democratic anchoring. More measures are on the way that improve the conditions for hydropower.

As long as the Christian Democrats are in government, there will be more initiatives for the benefit of the power system – not the politicians'.

Madam Speaker! The importance of the electricity system delivering electricity where it is needed, when it is needed, has become painfully clear in recent years. We can no longer afford political deadlocks or symbolic positioning. We do not have time to argue over details when we are largely in agreement on the goals.

The business community is crying out for long-term perspective, unity, and stability, and the truth is that we in this chamber agree on very much. We share a common goal: a fossil-free future, a secure electricity system, and a competitive Sweden. Then we should also be able to share the responsibility.

Madam Speaker! Sweden and the Swedish identity are a primal force. Our history shows that we manage difficult transitions, not by dismantling functioning solutions but by developing better ones.

Let us therefore not get stuck in ideological trenches and delay the forward movement. It is time to build – build more power plants, build more stability, build more future. Push more green!

I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! When Ebba Busch was in the Kalmar region last time, she said that small-scale hydropower would be saved. It was even so, according to Barometern, that she promised to make her own seat available if it was not achieved.

On July 31, the pause for hydropower's environmental assessments expires. The Centre Party thinks it is good that we received a pause; it was even we who took the initiative in the Riksdag for a committee initiative which then became a government announcement. The government has followed up on it, and that is good. But the referred proposal that the government has sent out makes things worse according to SVAF, which represents the small-scale producers. It does not solve the problems with the removal of dams in southern Sweden, and it also does not solve the problems with dwindling trout stocks in the north – a double error, therefore.

Ebba Busch is not here, but we have Camilla Brodin, who is both a group leader and an energy policy spokesperson. I become curious: Can Camilla Brodin guarantee that this promise will be fulfilled? Will the small-scale hydropower be saved? How, in that case, does one intend to do it? The referred proposal obviously does not solve the problem.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Rickard Nordin, for the question – a question that both I and the member have stood here in the chamber and debated many times – on the same side because we both guard small-scale hydropower immensely, especially in southern Sweden where it is needed most.

Now I do not stand here as a minister, for I am not, but I stand here as a Christian Democrat. Small-scale hydropower is incredibly important. I will not send any other signals than that Ebba Busch, when she was in Kalmar, said this because she also thinks so, and she is working absolutely actively so that the conditions do not risk resulting in displacement. It is absolutely a responsibility that lies with the Minister for Energy, but it is also handled within other parts of the area, which we both know.

I naturally hope that we will get as good opportunities as possible, and I am in talks, among others, with SVAF but also with various actors within hydropower. These are self-evident matters for us and our parties, but other parties also need to take their responsibility and push forward on this issue. Why we have not been able to go further and why this is not already in place is a question that we should pose to other parties.

Now the pause exists, and it is a clear mandate from our party leaders who sit in the government and who have worked for hydropower that even small-scale hydropower should be given the conditions to be able to remain. Otherwise, I believe that quite many who live all around Sweden and see the dams being torn down will wonder why the politicians did nothing.

There is no doubt that we Christian Democrats are working actively to save small-scale hydropower.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, it does not help that the Christian Democrats just do it. There is one and a half months left before the pause expires. Those who are to submit their applications on July 1 must know now – preferably yesterday or a couple of months ago – in order to be able to adapt their applications. They know nothing. They will probably need to submit an application based on the old legislation, because that is the one they have access to. One cannot change such a large application overnight.

It is a huge problem that the government cannot deliver decisions. Ebba Busch is responsible for the entire department that is supposed to deliver these things. My question therefore remains. I do not doubt that Camilla Brodin thinks this is important. But when will we receive a decision, and what will apply?

The proposal that the government has submitted, which has been sent out publicly, has indeed been criticized by practically everyone. But above all, it makes things worse for the small-scale operators. It is actually Camilla Brodin's government that, in that case, bears the responsibility for it getting worse. Then Ebba Busch should definitely keep her promise to resign if the problems are not solved, because that was what she said.

I would very much like, once again, to know: When will we receive notification, and what will the notifications be?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! There is no doubt about where we stand on this issue. That is what I truly want to inform everyone listening to this energy debate about. I can also inform you that we will deliver.

But it is not my mandate to stand in this chamber and say exactly when or exactly how it will look. But the referred proposal and all the referral bodies that have submitted their referral responses are incredibly significant for this government's continued work. One naturally listens to the referral bodies, especially in this issue.

I just want to say to all the friends of hydropower: We stand on your side.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! The energy system in many ways lays the foundation for how society can grow. Thus, it is also completely central for the country's development, for the jobs, for the welfare and for the prosperity.

Electricity has since its introduction into our societies also given us fantastic opportunities for development. Few – perhaps not even any – here today can probably imagine a world without electricity and all that we can use it for.

The expansion of hydropower, nuclear power, and wind power has successively enabled more use and caused our society to grow – both economically and socially. Furthermore, our electricity system became more or less fossil-free quite some time ago.

Even though it is moving a bit slowly, Sweden has now begun a shift – another step in the electrification – where transport, industrial processes, and other activities shall replace fossil energy, often imported, with domestically produced and fossil-free electricity. It is more efficient, and it is safer. It also creates new opportunities for both jobs and growth in Sweden.

Swedish energy, or above all electricity supply, can under the right conditions remain a unique competitive advantage – through high security of supply, low environmental impact, and electricity at low and competitive prices. It also appears as an increasingly important competitive advantage in a global environment characterized by trade barriers, tariff wars, and geopolitical tensions, not infrequently surrounding fossil energy.

For our part, it is not just about a transition. It is also very much about a development and an opportunity to attract new investments, new companies and new operations to Sweden.

That it becomes a successful electrification will be crucial for our opportunities to increase the growth that is so low today, to create prosperity and at the same time reach the climate goals that we for our part have to reach. But it also requires political initiatives.

The first thing is actually not about energy policy, but about the fact that we want this transition and that we truly stand up for the climate ambitions that the world has signed on to and which are required. It is precisely that which will lead to the increased need for electricity.

Here, the government's and the Sweden Democrats' policy has created doubt. They are not alone in this. Right-wing populists and right-wing politicians all around the world are doing exactly the same thing. This causes problems, because if those who are to invest in electricity production are not sure that demand will decrease, the willingness to invest will, of course, diminish. And conversely: If those who are to invest in operations that are to switch to electricity, or use more electricity, do not see that production is increasing, there will also not be much investment there.

Then, of course, costs are central. Household electricity prices must be secured throughout the country, and the competitiveness of Swedish industry needs to be secured through a stable supply of electricity and power at competitive prices in both the short and long term. But today, prices are still too high in southern Sweden. With more system-strengthening measures and more production in the right place, we can achieve great gains through lowered prices.

Here the government, despite what has been said previously, is doing too little. One is happy to talk about large-scale plans and goals until 2040 and 2045 and the years thereafter. But we need – both we and the business community say – also clear goals and more measures already by 2030 and 2035.

It is obvious that more must be done faster. We want to see incentives that enable investments in the offshore wind farms that have actually been granted permits – most have not. They are located in southern Sweden, and this would contribute to lowering electricity prices.

In addition to solving the connection for those who have received permits, the government must start the work of developing new offshore wind farms in the Baltic Sea. An auction-based allocation system cannot be delayed for years. It is something that needs to be put in place quickly.

The proposals for improvements in the conditions for land-based wind power that have already been investigated and that Mats Green raised in his speech must come out of the Government Offices. They have lain in the desk drawer for a very long time. Furthermore, we think it is time to implement our proposal for a speed bonus for municipalities that choose to change their veto so that projects that are already underway could be completed faster.

The direction for wind power that the Tidö parties pushed for in opposition and which they took with them into government position has significantly affected the investment rate – unfortunately negatively. Worse conditions are also reflected in falling investments. This year, for example, no turbines have been ordered during the first quarter. Last year, there were a couple of quarters that also went completely empty.

In the long run, of course, it is not only wind power that is needed. Investments in biogas turbines in southern and western Sweden are needed. We want to see that. The business community demands it. Mats Green and several others have raised it as something very important. There is, therefore, obviously a majority here in the chamber for it. It is about time to ensure that it also gets done.

In the short term, we also need to seize the potential that exists in energy efficiency. The Swedish Energy Agency points out that every seventh kilowatt-hour can be efficiently removed in an economically profitable way. It is a fast way to lower costs but also to create space for new use – for example, for new industries – where it is a bit tight, such as in Western Sweden.

We also want to see – as was discussed earlier – measures for hydropower. There is potential here to further increase the power output and capacity of hydropower. We have demanded an investigation concerning the removal of obstacles and problems. It is particularly important that the government ensures that the permit processes and the new environmental permits are in place as soon as possible and that it does not involve any significant loss of power production.

It is also possible to do more with the larger-scale hydropower. It is not just us who say that. Sveriges Ingenjörer also says it, who in a report point to a potential possibility to increase the power by 1,300 megawatts by 2035 through upgrades of today's facilities – a significant addition, quite simply.

Power uprating and life extension of nuclear power is likely also one of the most cost-effective things that can be done for the Swedish electricity system moving forward. It is of course incredibly important that the policy is designed so that it can happen in reality.

Madam Speaker! Energy policy is not just electricity. Energy policy also includes a great deal of other things. One thing that is particularly important is to secure district heating.

District heating has a crucial significance in the Swedish energy system. Through efficient heat distribution, the need for electricity is also reduced. Furthermore, combined heat and power can contribute with extra production when needed.

The price increases that have rolled out across the country over a couple of years risk a transition to solutions other than district heating, which in turn increases the need for electricity use in a situation where electricity should be used for other things. We want to strengthen the position of district heating and ensure that customers get increased clarity and transparency in how costs are distributed.

We also want to ensure that the large-scale electric pumps in district heating can receive a tax reduction so that, through that, one can both lower the price directly for district heating customers and also be able to use electricity, especially when there are negative electricity prices, to save biofuel and so that we can lower costs collectively. Biofuel has also become more expensive after the invasion in Ukraine when the imports from Russia fell away.

One can also add that the district heating industry is an area where the divestments of not least municipal networks have resulted in higher costs. It is another area where privatizations have resulted in customers paying more and where both households and companies simply have to pay too much. This was most recently shown in an ESO report just a few days ago.

We also need to continue to expand and modernize our electricity grids. A major focus in that work needs to be to ensure that we press the costs for this and increase the capacity as quickly as possible where the needs are greatest. Then, of course, we will do what we have always done in Sweden, namely stay far ahead in new technology.

Apart from building network capacity – which will be necessary but which is very expensive – other tools also need to be used. Something that can contribute is digitalization, AI, power electronics and various technologies for storage as well as aggregation and flexibility. The revenue regulation was discussed here earlier. It needs to be designed in such a way that we get prices as low as possible. Even that type of effort can be paid for in a system.

Madam Speaker! This was a selection of the many measures addressed in a report that contains most of the energy area. I have brought up some things that we consider most important for developing our energy system, increasing growth, security, and robustness in Sweden, and creating the new jobs. We are not putting all our eggs in one basket. We want to build a broad and stable system that, at low costs, guarantees that our country can take new steps forward.

We naturally stand behind all our reservations. But I choose to move for approval only to reservation number 13.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thought I would start by reflecting on the fact that Fredrik Olovsson and the Social Democrats often demand broad agreements. This applies in particular when they themselves are in opposition and especially when it concerns energy policy.

Then it may be relevant for those who think it sounds wise and also want to see that type of long-term perspective, which the Social Democrats have now relatively recently begun to demand for the most important societal challenges in our time, to look at the various reservations that exist from the government base that Fredrik Olovsson and the Socialdemokraterna intend to gather under themselves if we, God forbid, were to have a change of power after the next election. Fredrik Olovsson is welcome to reflect a bit on where those parties intend to meet.

I do not believe, in fact, that the great challenge in reaching a political agreement lies between the Tidö parties and the Social Democrats. I believe that it lies between the Social Democrats and the three parties that the Social Democrats intend to include in their government basis.

If we look at this, we see that both Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet in their respective reservations say that they want 150 terawatt-hours of wind power by 2040. That is approximately the same amount as all the electricity consumed in Sweden on an annual basis today.

If one looks at Miljöpartiet, they already want to have 30 terawatt-hours of solar energy by 2030. If one looks at what Centerpartiet says more in the short term, it is 100 terawatt-hours of new renewable power by 2030. If one looks at what S itself says, it is, on the other hand, 60 terawatt-hours.

It can be difficult for those who want to see long-term thinking to understand what is long-term when, in five years, we are not even at all in agreement on how much electricity should be produced in Sweden with the government basis that the Social Democrats and Fredrik Olovsson intend to assemble. How is that going to work, Madam Speaker?

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I could think that Tobias Andersson himself should have answered the question. How much more electricity production should we have by 2030 or 2035, and in what way are you in agreement with any other party regarding that figure? We have requested that type of common goals that should not only be between four parties but that should be broader than that. The question can truly be turned back.

It is interesting to see the difference in how one reads the report. On one hand, Tobias Andersson finds the differences, the divisions, and the unique aspects for each party that tries to describe how they want to proceed. On the other hand, Camilla Brodin finds what we agree on and all that is possible to build upon to make Sweden take steps forward. It is still a quite large difference in how you in the joint basis view the questions ahead.

For me, it is easy to say that we do not see that we, with four parties that are to be a government, should create an energy agreement that is to replace an agreement for the four parties that form a government today. That is exactly what has been the problem. We are trying to create agreements that are broader than that so that they will last longer.

Since then, it has not been so easy. The broad agreement that we had in 2016 with Kristdemokrater, Moderater, Centerpartister, Miljöpartister, and Socialdemokrater lasted for a very short time. It was very bad for Sweden. That it was broken surely also affects today how the market and various actors who are to invest in Sweden feel concern that there is not sufficient long-term perspective and perseverance in the politics.

Tobias Andersson probably contributes to that with his contribution. I think it is good that Camilla Brodin, and hopefully I myself, can contribute to the opposite.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Fredrik Olovsson!

I would still like to state that I began my speech by saying that I believe the four parties that govern Sweden today could probably have agreed on very much in the energy policy area together with the Social Democrats. The challenge is the three parties that the Social Democrats want to get to join a Social Democrat-led government after the next election. There, they do not agree on as much.

Regarding what our four parties, the Tidö parties, want in terms of planning, it is dependent on the goal that the Social Democrats said no to, that is, security of supply. If we cannot guarantee security of supply in our electricity system, it is not worth much which planning goal we have in exact terawatt-hours in one, five, ten or twenty years.

That is where the problem lies. One can read the reservations from the three parties that Fredrik Olovsson will attempt to unite in a social democratic government. That policy would mean that we would have a strong majority in terms of the share of weather-dependent [energy] in our system by 2030. We know that it is not possible.

There are no flexibility services, storage services, or anything else that would be ready in five years for an electricity system in Sweden that has been increased by 30 terawatt-hours of solar power or by 60 terawatt-hours of wind power. It is not possible. Then the security of supply fails, and then it doesn't matter how much electricity there is.

We will have a lack of effectiveness and no ability to regulate. First of all, we will have no possibility to guarantee that either households or industry receive electricity, and secondly that the electricity price is relatively low and constant. That is what one intends to govern on.

They want a Spanish energy mix. In their case, when it short-circuited, it was perhaps up to 75 percent weather-dependent power. It does not work. But that is what Fredrik Olovsson wants to form a government from.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Now Tobias Andersson cannot answer, so it will be a rhetorical question.

So, one should take the fact that there are no targets for 2030 or 2035 for production because it is not possible to achieve any more energy or electricity production by those years, for then we would not meet the security of supply. That would, in that case, be a terrible message to all the companies that want to invest in Sweden. But it is, of course, not true that it is that way. It is also possible to increase the capacity further with the help of other measures.

I would like to say that all the contributions I have heard so far have been about exactly that type of measures. I myself raised the power increase of both nuclear power and hydropower. I also raised the issue of gas turbines as an example of such things that can contribute to increasing capacity further and provide more renewable production.

The question regarding Spain has also been raised here. It is, of course, interesting. It is something that can truly be discussed. It also struck me how certain some members in this chamber are about what that was due to. The head of REE told Reuters herself that she does not know the cause but that the issue should be investigated. I think that is a fairly good arrangement.

It has been said previously that one has had this type of blackout before and that it has been due to all sorts of different things. It is naturally very important for us to learn from how one manages such a situation and how one avoids it from occurring. We shall, of course, be completely open to the fact that there may be many problems and things we need to solve.

If I am to give the government any praise during this period, I think that what has been done regarding electrical safety and electrical preparedness issues has been good. Then I can, just like Camilla Brodin, conclude on a positive note.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for mentioning me so many times in the speaker's chair! There is still something we can agree on, and that is also good in politics. But the Social Democrats have a proposal that I am thinking about a little bit. It is about securing lower and more stable electricity prices with something they call "folkhemsel". The proposal implies, if I haven't misunderstood it completely, that Swedish households get a fixed electricity price on at least 60 percent of their electricity consumption, according to the Social Democrats. But I believe that the remedy for our occasionally unpredictable energy supply is more predictable power. It will ensure security of supply and level electricity prices.

The government has presented a financing proposal for more predictable nuclear power, which we will soon vote on in this chamber. The Social Democrats say in their follow-up motion that the proposal is too expensive. I want to ask Fredrik Olovsson if it wouldn't become expensive with a price guarantee on 60 percent of households' electricity consumption. Does it build any more power plants?

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! The good thing about that type of system would be that even those who are to invest in production can know what price they will receive. It is something that Camilla Brodin is trying to solve for a major power source, namely nuclear power. Very much money is to be invested there, likely also from households and companies that will have to pay some form of extra tax or fee to guarantee a price forward. The point with the proposal for folkhemsel, as we call it, is to create long-term security and that the state is involved in procuring electricity on long contracts that could make this possible.

I would say that the question of hedging prices today is a bit different. For a long time, it was difficult for households to hedge prices in the way that many companies have been able to do for a long time. But even on the corporate side, it looks more difficult today when it comes to hedging prices over a slightly longer term. It is therefore a problem that affects more than just households today.

We have lost some of the power that has existed for companies and which we would have gladly seen available for households to a greater extent. But it is also the case that this system needs to be investigated before it can be implemented. One must have great respect for that when one is going to make changes.

Camilla Brodin's government has had an electricity market study that has looked at the design. Some of the thoughts contained there align with ours. But a number of additional adjustments were needed for them to be able to be implemented.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to Fredrik Olovsson for still trying to clarify a bit! It feels reassuring that the issue will be investigated before landing on it. But I am still wondering how much your proposal will cost when the state is to guarantee an electricity price. What will be the effect for installation companies, energy efficiency, and so on? Those are two questions I have for the member.

I have a little speaking time left. I was in Spain that Monday. It felt like that. Anxiety, panic, and many thoughts arise in a society that is affected. The importance of the power grid is truly reminded. We took the flight there and landed at six in the evening. The electricity came back at half past eight, meaning two and a half hours later. It is not a particularly long time. But it becomes a problem in a planning situation when one is to be at a place for several days and attend a large conference. You cannot flush the toilet, eat hot food, charge your mobile, or even find your way around the new city by googling. It is about that basic stuff that is nevertheless taken for granted.

It is important to have a stable and reliable power system. It is truly important. We will see what the investigation concludes, but there is no doubt that there was quite a lot of weather-dependent power in that system that day. If several errors occur simultaneously and one does not have more than five seconds to correct them, it results in a blackout. And that is truly dangerous.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I said initially that few here could imagine being without electricity. It is obviously so that Camilla Brodin has experienced it and knows that it has major consequences. We can probably all understand that.

I would still like to say, connected to what can go wrong, that it is clear that there will be problems if large installations fall out. It is understood that if the largest producer in the Swedish system quickly goes down, it will have effects. It has been a problem. If another large error occurs simultaneously, one can end up in a difficult situation. If very many can produce very much and the system has not been designed for that, it can also mean problems. It is in some way self-evident.

It will be interesting to follow what the investigation says about what was the problem in this case and what should be done about it in the future. We can all learn from the accidents and investigations that occur in the area. This also applies to nuclear power, for example. The accident in Fukushima has had great significance for the safety requirements in the Swedish nuclear power plants.

When it comes to the proposal on folkhemsel and low prices, we have not said that the state shall guarantee them. We have said that the state shall procure at the lowest price in order to also provide conditions for investments. One should be able to feel secure, when one invests or has a production, that one will be paid over time and that a certain price shall apply.

The proposal for folkhemsel is not quite the same thing as what is currently on the table, where nothing in particular is being put out to tender. On the contrary, all the money is supposed to go to one power company. It could have been an inverse model to let the CFDs proposed in the bill that we are to discuss in a week be put out to tender and that more power companies could be involved in bidding on how to best expand the Swedish electricity system.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! I reflected briefly on whether I should really take a reply from Fredrik Olovsson, because I still want to say that he is a serious and very competent representative for his party. If all Social Democrats were like him, I would have slept peacefully at night. It is more the opposing party that I can sometimes be a little worried about.

I do not intend to engage in any power-struggle discussion, because we all know where we stand with each other. But I would like to return to the discussion on competence, which perhaps did not receive a proper answer.

I have a sincere question. I still do not understand why the Social Democrats are such strong opponents to the requirement that all power plants must be able to deliver electricity around the clock, every hour of the year. Repairs and revisions are, of course, excepted. But it should be a self-evident matter. We cannot simply have power plants that deliver electricity when they feel like it. The power plants exist for society, for us humans, households and companies.

Therefore, it should still be a reasonable and fundamental condition to set requirements on capabilities. We must actually be able to ensure that Sweden has electricity not only in the summer but also in the winter when situations with a large shortage arise. I do not understand why the Social Democrats are against setting a capability requirement.

Again: I am not entering into any power struggle debate. There we know where we stand with each other. But why do you not want to set a basic and actually quite obvious competence requirement on all power types?

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! We make that demand of the electricity system in its entirety, where all types of power, all suppliers and in practice also a part of the large users shall be included. It is in that way we get a system that is as effective as possible with low costs overall.

I understand that Mats Green implicitly has a question regarding the fact that some can hitch a ride on others. So it can naturally be so, and in that case, it is bad. One should design a system and a market that ensures that, to the greatest extent possible, one receives payment for what one contributes, both energy and power or other abilities. One should also, to a large extent, have to pay if one does not do it or if one needs others' help for it.

I do not fundamentally think this is a problem. But the energy market has not looked like that from the 90s onwards. It has only been energy only. It has obviously created a number of problems. I think that what has happened in the ancillary services market and what is in the electricity market investigation is interesting.

I also think that the assignments given by the government to make the fossil-free, or the renewable, more secure in terms of delivery are interesting, so that we find systems that allow us to internalize profits and losses to the greatest extent possible where they should be. I do not think that one should socialize losses and privatize profits, but I also do not think that there should be that type of distribution effect fundamentally between different types of power sources. It is not easy to fully achieve this with different types of markets, even though a good deal has been done recently.

I note that it still became a fierce debate when Mats Green came here. After all, it was only about that. It is a bit unfortunate, because I believe we would need to have a greater focus on how we build the electricity system as a whole as efficiently, cheaply, and robustly as possible.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! It is unfortunate that the member perceived it that way. That was not my perception and neither was it my experience. But my point with basic requirements on abilities is that one thereby moves away from the power blow, which we need to move away from. Everyone needs to deliver everything. If all power blows do that, one can be power-blow neutral.

One cannot maintain that certain types of power generation actually only need to deliver electricity when they feel like it when, at the same time, the entire power system is dependent on other types of power generation, for example nuclear power, hydropower and combined heat and power, delivering these system services. Then one seems to do almost everything possible to counteract them.

I still do not understand why one says no to this basic, self-evident requirement. If someone is to deliver to our power system, they must be able to deliver year-round, even in the winter. One cannot pick and choose when it comes to a society. If one is to be involved, one must also take responsibility. One needs to serve the whole. Here, I have not received any real answer as to why the Social Democrats are against just this.

The Social Democrats have agonized over nuclear power for 50 years. I hope they will be able to move past that agony, but let us leave this matter there.

Perhaps we can still agree to focus on the capabilities of the forces and have equal conditions and equal requirements for everyone. In that case, we can avoid the talk about forces. I assert that the Social Democrats are still stuck there.

Let us discuss technical facts and basic requirements for all types of power. That is where I wish we were with the Social Democrats, but we are not quite there. Fredrik Olovsson is, as said, a sound, stable and trustworthy person, so I hope that we can land there. But then the relevant party must also be on board with that.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I may have problems with the relevant party if Mats Green continues to say that, but that is another matter.

On the other hand, I believe that Mats Green will also have problems if he imagines that all actors in the system who are allowed to participate must deliver every second of the year. It would become a terribly expensive, inefficient, poor, and quite sensitive system. It is much better to combine all the different types of forces we have and all the technical possibilities that exist so that the system becomes as efficient as possible.

We will, of course, still have extremely high requirements for delivery and stability. But we must also have low prices so that our competitiveness can be strengthened. This is not least important as the world looks now. It is naturally extremely important that we get the opportunity to develop Swedish industry, industrial capability, and industrial capacity. Energy policy and the electricity price will play a very large role in this.

I am afraid that the system that Mats Green is painting here in the rostrum would become the opposite of what we need, that is to say, low prices throughout the country.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! I will dwell on the large differences in electricity prices that we still see in Sweden.

Many of us probably experience that something is genuinely wrong when we, within the same country, have to pay very different prices for the same commodity, that is to say, for our electricity. I cannot understand why a family with children in Ystad should have to pay much more for their electricity than the same family with children does in, for example, Umeå. This is not healthy for the cohesion of a country. It is definitely harmful for Swedish production and for Swedish entrepreneurship when there continue to be large price differences, based on a completely artificial ground.

From the Liberals' side, we have been clear all the time, and we continue to be. We believe that Sweden should function as a single electricity price area. It is not reasonable for a price to vary so much depending on where in the country one lives.

That it looks the way it does is because Sweden introduced four electricity price areas in 2011 after Dansk Energi had reported Svenska kraftnät to the EU Commission. The report was based on the fact that Svenska kraftnät periodically restricted the export of electricity to Denmark to ensure electricity in the southern parts of Sweden. That the export needed to be restricted was due to the fact that Svenska kraftnät could not handle the bottlenecks, which in turn was a direct result of having shut down the nuclear reactors in Barsebäck.

Everything is interconnected. But in order to manage the situation and stop limiting export volumes, Svenska kraftnät decided on its own initiative to introduce electricity price areas in Sweden. The consequence of that we can probably all see as problematic. It has not led to investments in the southern part of the country. Instead, it has led to a significant price increase for electricity customers, primarily in price area 4.

I therefore thought it was very positive that Svenska kraftnät announced last week that they have now changed position and clearly see that a new division is needed and that the division shall be based on Swedish conditions. That is good. I suspect that this will lead to a great deal of work and a major revision ahead. From a liberal perspective, we will follow everything very closely.

Madam Speaker! Regarding the production of energy, the government has laid out the direction for energy policy since it took office. It may be worth reminding why we have done so. It was in order to be able to increase the production of fossil-free energy at competitive prices. We have begun the work, but it takes time. It takes a little extra time because there are still parties that do not quite want to declare their colors on the issue. It is regrettable. It is primarily southern Sweden that pays the price.

While waiting for expanded production, the government has made several decisions aimed at restructuring energy policy and achieving stability in the system. My colleagues have accounted for what the government has done. I will not repeat that.

However, I would also like to highlight the positive news that came a few days ago when Öresundsverket in Malmö was finally reopened. It is strategically important. It now enables emergency operation, which means that Malmö will receive electricity even if the main grid were to be knocked out for some reason. I believe that many Malmö residents, including myself, breathed a sigh of relief this week.

I have nothing further to add other than that I wish to vote in favor of the proposal in the report.

In this speech, Camilla Brodin (KD) agreed.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! There are two problems with Russian gas. One is that it is Russian, and the other is that it is gas. Even the leader of the Liberals said that. I might want to add that it is also fossil, which is a third problem.

It is actually the case that the EU spends more money on importing Russian energy than on supporting Ukraine. The Russian energy is also present in Sweden. We import gas in quite large quantities. Furthermore, we do not know where more than half of our gasoline and diesel comes from. It has an unknown origin. I can guarantee that it is not Norwegian North Sea oil.

We do, however, have very great potential to increase our biogas production in Sweden. The industry's biogas commission has shown that there are up to 60 terawatt-hours to be retrieved by 2050. They want to set a goal of 10 terawatt-hours by 2030, which the Centerpartiet has also said for quite some time. We from the Centerpartiet also talk about conversion support for vehicles, about goals for production, about broadened support for for example pyrolysis, about opening up Industriklivet and much more.

But in the report, all proposals regarding biogas are rejected. The conclusion then becomes that if we are not to have biogas in Sweden, it is the Russian gas that will continue to flow, possibly with replacement of gas from Qatar, Saudi Arabia or somewhere else, which is also not sensible to invest in.

We need gas as a raw material, not least in industry in various ways – at my home on the west coast, among other places. But perhaps the most important thing is the drinking water supply, which is completely dependent on gas. In that case, it would be good if we could produce it ourselves instead.

My question to the Liberals and Louise Eklund is: If we are not to have the Russian gas, why are no measures being taken for the Swedish biogas?

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! I am pleased that the Centre Party is raising this, which I know my party the Liberals and other parties in the government are working intensively on in dialogue with our European colleagues – that the EU must cease the import of Russian gas that has formed the basis for much of European energy use in recent decades. It is, just as the Member says, not reasonable that we with one hand continue to provide support to Ukraine but with the other indirectly finance the war effort ongoing from the Russian side. I completely share that view.

Regarding the report and the proposals that have been submitted, I want to emphasize once again that what is long-term sustainable, if one wants to phase out fossil sources, is to lay the foundation here and now and take the steps that are needed so that we can get nuclear power in place. That is what I and my party stand for, and that is what is missing in Swedish energy production. That is why we are working so intensively on just that question. That is our opinion.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! It is good that there is a shared view that we should get rid of the Russian gas. But nuclear power does not solve any problems for the Swedish chemical industry. They need carbon atoms in their processes, not electrons. Nuclear power does not solve the problems one has at all.

One does not solve what is today raw material production. Take the steel industry – steel is an alloy between iron and carbon. There, one needs enormous amounts of biogas or some other type of source for biogenic carbon. Nuclear power does not solve that. If Louise Eklund's message to Swedish industry is that we should invest in nuclear power and not in biogas, we are in a very bad position.

It is also this we see in the report. There are no proposals from the government when it comes to biogas. The only thing it has done that is relevant is that it withdrew the proposal for tax exemption in the long bank, which meant that the price one had to pay at the pump was 5 kronor higher for quite many years. It is also not possible to solve with nuclear power.

My question remains: What does the government intend to do to increase Swedish biogas production? Biogas is absolutely crucial for our transition. It is a raw material that enters the industry, and it replaces fossil gases. Biogas ensures that we can have a drinking water supply. We do not solve drinking water with nuclear power either.

This is an incredibly narrow view. Speakers have previously stood in the rostrum and said that all possible solutions are being looked at. But that is obviously not the case. Louise Eklund confirms what the opposition constantly says: You have tunnel vision.

My question remains, as I said: What does one intend to do to increase Swedish biogas production? The Centre Party has delivered a bunch of proposals, but what is the government actually doing?

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! I think the tone is a bit mocking. I can counter by saying that I thank you for the lecture on Swedish industry.

We do not share the picture of what needs to be done here and now and what should be prioritized. It is not a matter of either-or. I think that my colleagues and I have been extremely clear that everything is needed. The Kristdemokraterna member said it a few minutes ago in the speaker's chair: Everything is needed right now.

But what has been missing in Swedish energy production for a longer period is precisely nuclear power. If we want to continue with a green transition and continue with the electrification, we need to get nuclear power in place in Sweden.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! If there is anything that is high on the agenda in society, it is obviously the energy policy. One question that citizens ask themselves is: How can it be that the electricity cost for us citizens in Sweden increases even though we have so much electricity that we sell more than any of the EU countries to our neighbors? Then we should surely have so much electricity that one does not need to skin one's own customers who buy Swedish-produced electricity?

It will not be easy to explain to the pensioner who turns over every krona why he is now paying 70 percent more for the same item than he did three years ago. And 70 percent is the average – there are those who pay 120 percent more for the same item.

A pensioner in price area 1 with a contract of 34 öre receives a contract proposal of 120 öre when the contract expires. The pensioner does not know what to do. Some sign for 120 öre, some for 90 öre. Then the pensioner calls and asks how this can be. People are being scolded through this system – that is how it looks.

Then the neighbor in price area 1, who has not entered into any agreement, pays an average price of perhaps 28 öre. The pensioner becomes desperate: Now I have entered into a bad agreement. A lot has been placed on the pensioners themselves – they must be able to handle this. It is roughly the same as with the pension system. The person calls the electricity company and says: I want to cancel the agreement. Yes, but that works perfectly – pay 5,000 kronor.

You understand the situation. This system is sick.

It is clear that if the government and other parties had wanted to protect Swedish consumers, they would have challenged the EU regulatory framework regarding marginal pricing and declared that we intend to introduce a fifth price zone, which involves that we first price the electricity demanded on the Swedish electricity market and thereafter the export electricity, in the same way as today. It cannot be claimed that this would disturb the market since those who buy electricity from us would pay in exactly the same way and at exactly the same price as today.

It is completely incomprehensible, Madam Speaker, why this is not sinking in with my colleagues, who could make a difference now and challenge the EU and Brussels with Sweden prices or the Beken model, as it is actually called. I have checked with Brussels. They say it is very uncertain whether this would disturb the domestic market, as they say. The model could be implemented in less than one and a half years.

Then it is a challenge to try to tell the pensioner how sick the system for the electricity grid has become. It is about how the grid companies' possibility to increase fees is determined. I say it to you others here as well: Try to explain this!

We see how an input and commodity of a socially important character has become a lucrative industry both for foreign companies and, of course, also for our own state-owned company. That happens when one deregulates and believes that the market is a good master in everything. It is about a socially important function that everyone needs – the industry needs it.

The Social Democrats write in a motion that political decisions made with a small mandate majority during a single parliamentary term are not a sufficient basis for large investments within the energy sector with long-term perspectives. I fully agree with that. Therefore, the government should work towards long-term and broad agreements on energy policy. This is what we heard about in the exchange of replies.

I fully agree with the proposers. It is not good for AB Sverige and our competitiveness that energy policy becomes subject to election promises every four years. Furthermore, that some want to remove the issue for other reasons is also not good. We must establish a sustainable energy platform that gives industry and the business community confidence that politics can agree on things that are good for Sweden – not just because a promise was given in an election campaign in 2022.

We have been invited to energy talks by the minister. It has been appreciated – I want to declare that – but if the purpose is that we are only to approve the government's financing of new nuclear power, it will of course be nothing more than just talks. It will only be talks that confirm our different views regarding how we should handle energy policy. Nor will we continue to receive any broad agreement that would strongly benefit Sweden.

A comprehensive electrification of Swedish society is important to achieve a rapid and extensive climate transition. Therefore, long-term and well-founded energy policy decisions are needed that provide long-term and stable conditions for increased electricity production. The proposals on the long-term direction of energy policy that the government laid before the Riksdag in the spring of 2024 are unfortunately neither well-founded nor broadly politically anchored, unfortunately. This applies in particular to the challenges that are already at the door.

I see an absolute necessity in setting ambitious planning goals for the expansion of electricity production. But such goals must steer towards an increased production on a shorter time horizon than the government proposes. For the industry to dare to invest in a transition, the companies need to know that there is available fossil-free electricity already in 2030.

Both industry and households, the transport sector and thus also the climate need more electricity now rather than in a distant future, where nuclear power is said to be the solution to all problems.

Madam Speaker! That the government only has its sights set on 2045 risks resulting in important investments and grid initiatives being pushed into the future.

Energy policy

I therefore consider that clear sub-targets are needed every five years and answers on how electricity production is to increase in the near term. My view is that a reasonable target is that around 70 terawatt-hours of electricity production is added by 2030.

Madam Speaker! I and the Left Party question, and most strongly, what is the driving force when the government, as a form of religion, drives that new nuclear power and its financing must be in place and as fast as possible. At the same time, it is only we in the Left Party who question whether marginal pricing really is the only thing that works when it comes to pricing our own produced electricity.

I do not buy that our production cost regarding electricity in Sweden would have become 70 percent more expensive in three years. A socially important function, which electricity is for both industry and private individuals, surely shouldn't be something that some companies are to make a fortune on?

I will never accept that we risk our transition when it comes to the industry's plans or that people have to leave their homes because we have allowed the privatization of socially important functions such as electricity distribution and production.

I naturally stand behind all our reservations but move for approval only of reservation 3.

(Applause)

(cont. § 6)

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