Energy policy

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal for a decision.

As is known, we coordinate energy issues within the Tidö parties, which is why the Sweden Democrats have no reservations in this report. In fact, energy issues were one of the areas where our four parties first found common ground. Perhaps it was because the nature of the issue was not as sensitive as some others. Perhaps it was because the common criticism of the current opposition's policy in the area at that time united us. We had a situation where it was perhaps easy for a Sweden Democrat and a Moderate to find common ground in the criticism of the energy policy that S, advocated by the Green Party, stood for at that time. It was simple to realize that the political decommissioning of nuclear power and the consequences it had for our electricity system, together with the renewable energy craze that had prevailed for a longer period, was something unhealthy.

In the criticism, which was subsequently put into print by the Swedish National Audit Office, our four parties found common ground. And the fact remains: It was these four parties that jointly campaigned before the last election in the joint energy bus, which likely provided energy for the election campaign and subsequently for Sweden after election day.

There may be nuances between us on energy issues, but this has nevertheless been one of the political areas that has likely been easiest to cooperate on during these years.

It is, to say the least, more than what can be said about the opposition parties' energy policy, Madam Speaker. In the budget debate we had here a while ago regarding expenditure area 21 Energy, for example, it differed by many billions between the four parties' initiatives or savings in the energy policy area. If one looks at the report we are debating today, one certainly sees some joint writings from the four opposition parties, but there is also a large number of areas where one might have thought they should be able to agree, but where they still have common reservations. They concern wind power, solar power, bioenergy of various kinds, and many other of the other reservation points found in the report.

As a voter, one might think that there is a policy from the Tidö parties and a policy from the opposition parties, but then one only has to look at this report and realize that not even in the issues where it should be easiest for the opposition parties to think alike do they think alike. Then they would not have had their own reservations point by point, but instead they would have succeeded in co-authoring these and shown unity in one of the most important issues for the voters.

Enough about this for the moment.

Let us instead look back. This is the final energy policy debate based on the motions raised during the general motion period this mandate period. At that point, it may also be worth highlighting some of what we have achieved on the topic. Even though I, as a Sverigedemokrat, new to the art of participating in and influencing the governance of a country, may think that it is not quite moving at the pace I had hoped for, it is worth highlighting that we will deliver on all points regarding energy found in the Tidö Agreement.

It must still be said, Madam Speaker, that this is something new in Swedish politics, namely that four parties can reach an agreement. Shortly after election day, we presented to the voters, the journalists, and others what we intended to do during the coming four years and that we had a majority to do so. Then we actually did what we said we would do. I do not know when it happened to that extent or with that consistency at the earliest, or over the past four years. We have, of course, had many majority governments over the years, if we go back a bit. But rarely did they have such a clear political ambition so early with such identifiable political points as those we can now follow up on the delivery of. We have not previously seen this to the extent or with the success that the Tidö Agreement has rendered, not least in the energy policy area.

Let me mention something. We have changed the energy policy goals in how our electricity system should be designed to now actually include nuclear power, i.e., 100 percent fossil-free instead of renewable by 2040. We have established a security of supply goal that sets requirements that we must be able to have the consumption that is needed at the location one desires and thereby ensure the production and a grid that can manage to transport the produced amount.

There are now planning goals. On the theme I was touching upon, linked to the opposition's various opinions, I note how it looks when the different opposition parties get to look at what they would like to have in sub-goals for the planning policy goal that we have set up. I saw nothing in the Center Party's reservation. The Social Democrats want 60 terawatts of new electricity production by 2030. Vänsterpartiet wants 70, and the Green Party wants 100. We are talking about large volumes in the difference between the other political parties in this chamber, Madam Speaker, in contrast to the government and the Sweden Democrats who set a long-term goal, speak to Sweden's business community about what we want, and then set to work to enable this.

We have also dismantled the obstacles that previous governments have implemented in Swedish legislation and bureaucracy to stop new investments in nuclear power. We have invested in research and innovation in the energy policy area. We have stopped Hansa Powerbridge to reduce the transmission capacity to the continent, and thereby we have saved electricity prices somewhat in southern Sweden. We have strengthened the mandate of Energimarknadsinspektionen to be able to review the monopoly position that the electricity grid companies have. We have increased the installed production capacity and raised the power balance. We have lowered the energy tax on electricity this year by a full 6 billion. Perhaps that was not considered when we had a currently high electricity bill in January, but we have thus lowered the energy tax on electricity by approximately 10 öre.

We have also ensured that Öresundsverket and Karlshamnsverket are not dismantled and shipped away. Instead, they are on site and support our electricity system. We have invested billions in Kraftlyftet for short-term power increases all over Sweden. We have simplified both regulations and permit processes in the area. A high-cost protection is in place in this year's budget, and we are working to save the Swedish bottleneck revenues from the EU's bureaucracy – where they are trying to seize these. We have stopped the environmental assessments of hydropower, to ensure that we do not lose this fantastic function in our electricity system. We continue the work of ensuring good competitive conditions for hydropower also in the future.

Much more is happening in this area. This was a milestone. But we naturally need to continue to receive confidence to deliver in this area, and it will remain one of the most important issues until election day.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Tobias Andersson for the speech.

I believe that many who listen to an energy policy debate with the breadth that we have today really wonder what the large party in the government base has to say about the situation we find ourselves in now. The message from the Energy Minister in the autumn was that no one should have to stand alone with large electricity bills during the winter. Many Swedes surely also believed the Tidö parties when the promise was given.

In the coming days, another new electricity bill will arrive, a new blow following last month's blow. But it is not only the electricity price that is driving up the electricity bills, but to that are added large increases in grid fees. On top of this, many Swedish families also face large costs for power charges.

The Social Democrats have repeatedly demanded that the electricity support be activated and that the capacity charges be paused. My two questions to Tobias Andersson are simple: Why have you not paused the fee increases? Why do you refuse to activate the electricity support?

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is one thing for the Social Democrats to "demand" that we do something, and it is another thing for the Social Democrats to budget for other solutions than those that are already in place.

It would have been simpler to explain to the voters that if our budget had gained favor in the chamber of the Riksdag, the high-cost protection for electricity would have come into effect. However, that would have been based on having invested money in it in one's budget. It would have been reasonable, and I would gladly have had that debate. Shall we put it at the average price, and the support kicks in at 1.50 or below? I think there are good reasons to put it below 1.50, but it is still a fact that one has not pushed for this in budget discussions or in own budget proposals from the Socialdemokraterna.

It is easy to ask why the support is not coming, but Fredrik Olovsson knows how the support is designed. It is designed so that an average price for an electricity consumer who exceeds 1.50 kronor per kilowatt-hour during a month means that the consumer receives electricity support. It is in the budget. There lies 1 billion and the note that more funds may be added if electricity prices shoot up further.

We have not had this price. In January, I had 1.08 kronor. At that time, I was a bit far from receiving the support. To ensure that everything goes correctly, the support must be paid out in arrears because the electricity grid companies must report the customers' average price to synchronize with the support.

The content is that there is no other proposal for another support or a different design of the support from the Social Democrats. From the Sverigedemokraterna's side, we can imagine lowering the level for the high-cost protection. The Social Democrats are welcome to answer if they wish.

My speaking time is up, and I will return to the grid fees in the next reply. Sorry, Fredrik Olovsson!

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I am happy to receive well-founded answers. However, I did not receive that in this reply.

We Social Democrats have also set aside funds for support for high electricity bills, and we think they should be activated now. Money should not, as Tobias Andersson says, lie around and slosh about, and the proposal should not, as Ebba Busch says, lie in a desk drawer; it should be used to support the households that are now receiving high electricity bills, partly because electricity prices are high, and partly because other fees have also been increased very significantly. Therefore, we think it is time to do this now: activate the electricity support, make the decision, arrange the regulations, and ensure that the money is paid out to the country's households as quickly as possible.

That is what we want to do, but it does not seem that Tobias Andersson is prepared to take that type of initiative in the cooperation that exists in this area, as he began by saying. You have no reservations here. Apparently, there are also not enough reservations against the government continuing to withhold the electricity support. It would be incredibly important to do this now.

I believe it would be beneficial if the government and the Tidö parties now collectively told Swedish households that the electricity support is coming – that they will not be left alone with the high electricity costs during this winter. As it looks now, that is exactly how it will be. One has to stand alone while the money sits and idles in the budget.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! To return to Fredrik Olovsson's two questions, I think it is somewhat regrettable that Fredrik Olovsson, whom I consider a wiser and more honest politician than his colleague Mikael Damberg, who has been out and reasoned in the same way, says "activate the support now!". What does that mean, Madam Speaker? Then the Social Democrats must say how the support should be designed if they get to decide. Or should everyone just get money? How much money should it be? Should it be distributed equally to someone who had an average electricity price of 50 öre as to someone who had a price of 1 krona and 10 öre? Or should the support be adjusted based on who had expensive electricity bills? Should it be 1 billion, which is in the budget now, or do the Social Democrats want 5 billion? How should these be distributed?

Sorry, but I do not think it is serious, Madam Speaker, to say "the support shall be activated – give everyone money!". Instead, one should say: "If the Social Democrats had been in government, we would have set the target for the high-cost protection for electricity at 1 SEK and 25 öre, and we would have allocated 10 billion SEK for this purpose." There we can have a discussion. But to simply say "activate the support – give people money!" is nothing other than pure and utter populism, which I am not always opposed to, but the Social Democrats claim to be it, why they should not engage in this.

To return to the first question regarding the capacity charges, it is obvious to me, and certainly also to Fredrik Olovsson, that they have been implemented in different ways by different electricity grid companies. There is a great need for the policy to review the charges and give a mandate to the responsible supervisory authority to guarantee that they are appropriate and are not set at a higher level than the EU prescribes or at a level that makes them harder for consumers to understand. This is something that must be in place by January 1st next year. Until then, we should have plenty of time to ensure that the charges are implemented in a consumer-friendly and consumer-understandable way.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Tobias Andersson, for the speech! It is almost touching how proud Tobias Andersson is of the mandate period. But it raises a number of questions regarding the claims that were put forward.

More energy for Sweden was one of the things that Tobias Andersson mentioned. Then I become a bit curious about what the Tidö parties have achieved that has contributed with more energy to Sweden.

The power balance has improved, Tobias Andersson mentioned. That can absolutely be read in Svenska kraftnät's latest balance report. But what is it that has contributed to the power balance having improved? Is it some form of fossil-free energy, or what is it that has made it become like this?

Tobias Andersson also mentioned that we in the opposition would be very divided on the energy goals. But here one can say that the devil is in the details. What the Green Party has proposed is to make more electricity available, that is, not just that more should be produced. We include energy efficiency in our goal. It has a potential of approximately 25–30 terawatt-hours and is therefore quite a bit in parity with the other parties' goals.

Then, of course, it must be mentioned that the Tidö parties' policy has led to a standstill in the expansion of new power production, so in this situation it will naturally be difficult to achieve those figures as early as 2030. This was something we discussed about two years ago.

Since then, the industry has been very clear in requesting quantified targets for 2030 and 2035. It is a pity that the Tidö parties have not succeeded in meeting the industry's demands in this regard.

Last but not least: The power lift. What has it resulted in so far?

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Linus Lakso for the questions and the allegations! We shall see if I have time to address them all or if we will return to some of them.

If we start with the planning goal, it is in my view very positive that for the first time we have a clear majority in this chamber that looks at energy policy in the long term. We have certainly had that once in a while, but then it was primarily engineers who pushed for it. Now, it is coming from the political side, listening to what needs seem to exist in the future from industry associations and authorities, and setting a political ambition to enable this.

Then we can discuss it in detail. Should we have a numerical target by a certain year, or should we follow the development over time and adjust the political objective? I think that can be discussed.

I also think that when it comes to energy production, which nowadays might be a hotter word than energy policy agreement, that the planning goal could be such a political issue where there is value in discussing it between a majority of political parties to give the business community a more unified picture of what the politics believes, thinks, and tries to achieve for the future. There, I do not think there should be any obvious political conflict between me and Linus Lakso.

On the other hand, we can think from my side that 100 terawatt-hours by 2030, which Miljöpartiet in this report argues that we should find in the four years that remain through either efficiency or new production, is rather optimistic. It is naturally very easy to throw out those types of large figures when one is in opposition. But I am convinced that if I had stood here and said that we would solve 100 terawatt-hours by 2030, Linus Lakso in his role in opposition would have strongly questioned the probability of this. Now I shall take the opportunity to do the same, even though I am not in opposition. I am, however, happy to scrutinize the opposition.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! As I already mentioned, this was something that was primarily discussed two years ago. It is clear that the conditions have changed, and that is due in no small part to the Tidö parties' policy, which has slowed down the expansion of power production by 75 percent during this mandate period. It is clear that such a catastrophic policy will take time to repair after the next election.

The parties at Tidö have decided on a planning goal of 300 terawatt-hours by 2045. I have asked this question before to Tobias Andersson, who may have had a little time to reflect on the answer. We have not received much of an answer so far. What do the Sweden Democrats think? What power production should this consist of? Niklas Wykman has now announced that there will be no ten new nuclear power reactors. We are missing, if we are talking about consumption, approximately 160 terawatt-hours. Then we have to factor in that between 2035 and 2045, it is expected that approximately 10 terawatt-hours per year in production will fall below the age limit. That is, therefore, quite a lot more electricity that is needed. Where will it come from? And above all, what do the Sweden Democrats want it to be used for?

Then I still wonder a bit what energy has been added during this mandate period and what the Tidö parties have actually done to strengthen the balance of power.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Once again, thanks to Linus Lakso for the questions!

I believe that Linus Lakso is well aware that an in-depth discussion on the exact composition of our electricity system or the exact consumption in our electricity system is difficult to manage in two minutes, even if I try – I want to be clear about that.

Some questions have arisen. The power lift was addressed earlier. I think it is important that we ensure funds to seek for new production or flexibility that can be put in place early. From the Sverigedemokraterna's side, we would have wanted to utilize the bottleneck revenues as part of the compensation for this. We would have gladly seen that it could also have gone to fossil production in cases where it becomes relevant with, for example, a new gas turbine. We are, however, limited by the EU's state aid rules for exactly this support. I believe, therefore, that the conditions could have been better if it had been designed in a different way and the EU had not interfered as much. That was a concrete answer to that question.

I do not have the figures in front of me, but I believe what we have received from the department is that we are talking about 7,000 megawatts of installed production capacity and 2,000 added to the power balance, to answer the question that Linus asked. We can double-check afterwards if he is very curious about the exact content. This was taken from memory – we will have to see if it is correct or not.

This regarding 300 terawatt-hours until our set planning goal, I believe we need to review. Since we communicated it, we have seen a major bankruptcy of one of the companies that was supposed to consume a part of this. We also see significant challenges in another company that was supposed to consume even more of the intended new production.

But this was nevertheless in line with the existing scenario analyses from authorities and industry organizations. If they change, or if the composition of the need changes – i.e., if it becomes data centers instead of green steel, for example – there are grounds for a political discussion on priorities and power allocation. We do not have time for that now, but I am happy to take it another time.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Access to energy is one of the most important building blocks for an industrial nation and a welfare society. But the challenge is not only to secure energy but also to build a sustainable, cost-effective and secure energy system.

In these days with war in the Middle East that has major effects on the gas and oil market, it is clear that fossil-free status and reduced dependence on imported fossil energy, not least from unstable regions and from rogue states, is a crucial economic security issue. The transition from a system with a large share of imported fossil energy to a system that primarily relies on electricity from fossil-free sources is therefore completely central.

But it is also not about that work being about just building electricity production at any cost. The challenge is to create a system that provides reliable electricity at a low cost. It is the total cost for families, companies, and the common economy that needs to be low. It is ultimately the overall cost picture that determines whether the electricity and energy system is truly competitive.

In Sweden, we have good opportunities to succeed in building such an efficient system. With the conditions we have in Sweden, this is achieved through an efficient combination of several power sources and different functions: nuclear power and wind power, hydropower and district heating, flexibility and storage. Here, however, the Moderaterna and Sverigedemokraterna have failed, primarily by almost exclusively focusing on one piece of the puzzle, the new nuclear power, and even with this, they have not succeeded particularly well so far. Consequently, they also miss all other measures that are needed to build a competitive system.

We see how the Tidö policy means that new investments in production have almost completely stalled, and that is a strong warning signal. It will drive up electricity prices in the future. It creates uncertainty in the business sector, and it jeopardizes jobs and growth in Sweden.

The Social Democrats have a broader approach where the goal is not power strikes but competitiveness, cost-effectiveness, and security of delivery. This requires a more technology-neutral approach. This means, for the first place, that we strive for political stability. Sweden needs a cross-bloc agreement that can create stability that can reduce costs and provide the security and predictability required for the business sector to invest.

Then we, just like the energy industry and the business community, want to continue with a broad energy production that can handle what is in practice a new electrification of Sweden. It will cost our country dearly that the Sweden Democrats and the Moderates have refused to reach an agreement on this during this mandate period, but we are happy to take it on during the next.

Secondly, stronger state planning is needed and thus also a responsibility for where and how electricity production, storage, and the grid should be built, so that the energy system can become more efficient and costs can be minimized. It has been a combination of the market and where it has been geographically possible to obtain permits that has largely determined where the expansion should take place in recent times.

We want to take a firmer grip on societal development, and in that regard, how we build electricity production is also completely central. But the question of when is also interesting. Breaking down the long-term goals – such as this one with 300 terawatt-hours by 2045, which Tobias Andersson spoke about – into shorter terms, to 2030 and 2035, also provides increased clarity and stability. It is something that should be done jointly.

Thirdly, we also see that a considerable number of new tools are required to realize this, for example investment support. Just as the government has allocated funds for nuclear power in the budget, we want to see a state commitment for all large-scale energy production, where by building on cost-effectiveness and reliability we can achieve low prices for the country's families and increased competitiveness for Swedish companies.

For the fourth, a policy for efficiency was also needed. If one wants to be competitive, the systems must be optimized. Through efficiency measures, we can also create space for existing industry to expand and for new industry to be established in Sweden. The Energy Agency points out that every seventh kilowatt-hour can be saved profitably. That is what we want to do.

For the fifth, it is understood that the power grids need to be expanded, but the regulation needs to become tougher. The companies have been allowed to take out too large profits, and too little focus has been placed on innovation and cost-efficiency. The electricity fee that is now being introduced, together with the companies' opportunities to take out an additional 100 billion kronor from their customers in the coming years, effectively lowers the popular support for the entire sector.

Madam Speaker! Other areas than those I have now raised are also important. District heating needs better competitiveness so that it is protected in the energy system. Hydropower has the capacity to contribute more and should be upgraded. Wind power needs better conditions. The permit processes need to go faster and become more legally secure. Fusion power and geothermal energy need reasonable regulatory frameworks and a state commitment, and we in Sweden need a hydrogen strategy.

The industry that needs to transition also needs, like everyone who wants to invest and build new operations in Sweden, to feel clear support from a government that does not waver on which path Sweden should take. It is a government that unites Sweden around a vision of what we should be as a country and also what we shall live on in the future. It is a government that clarifies that fossil-free status is the way to competitiveness and security. It is a government that raises the stakes and works hard to increase our industrial capacity, our production capacity, and thereby also our security and our prosperity. We do not need a government that wavers on the direction and phases out industrial policy tools, for what else would we use the new electricity for?

The Social Democrats have a number of reservations in this report. We have this because there is a great deal that needs to be done to build a competitive energy system and which is not being done today.

But even though it is possible to direct criticism at not least the Sverigedemokraterna and the governing parties in this area, I want to conclude in a different way.

We are serious about our belief and opinion that Sweden develops best if we work together in this area. We want to see broad agreements on energy policy. We want us to work together on electrifying Sweden and not just build a fossil-free energy system, but a cost-effective and competitive system. It is needed if Swedish families are to have low costs and money left over for something other than electricity and heating. It is required if Swedish companies are to be able to retain jobs and production here and if new jobs are to be created in Sweden in new, important strategic industries. It is the foundation for us also to achieve increased prosperity.

Madam Speaker! Even though I stand behind all our reservations in the report, I choose to move for approval only of reservation 1 and reservation 8.

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Olovsson, for the speech! The Social Democrats did contribute to 20 percent of the planned electricity production in southern Sweden being shut down. According to independent assessors, this has cost Skåne approximately 11,000 jobs. The power shortage has thus cost Skåne approximately 11,000 jobs, despite the fact that Skåne as a region has good conditions for industrial and technological development and production.

When the Social Democrats now say they are in favor of new nuclear power, I have a question for Member of Parliament Olovsson: Can the Social Democrats, in light of what you know today, admit that it was a mistake to shut down Ringhals 1 and Ringhals 2?

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I mentioned in my speech that we believe we should have an increased state responsibility for energy production in Sweden going forward. There has been very much of a market in this area previously. Even the decisions that have concerned nuclear power have been made in boards and on market-based grounds. This does not only apply to Ringhals. It also applies to Oskarshamn, where the same decision has been made.

Now we all see that it would have been good if the investments that were required but were then considered unprofitable had been made, just as we now also see that it will be necessary to make investments in the old nuclear reactors we have today to make them live longer – it will likely be cheaper than building new ones.

Of course, we want to see more energy production moving forward. I also believe it is important to reflect on what kind of decisions are being made today. Jesper Skalberg Karlsson belongs to a government base that has ensured that we do not, for example, expand Kriegers flak, south of Skåne, which would mean that electricity is provided to an additional 500,000 households and would lower costs in southern Sweden. This is information that we have here and now, and yet today's government chooses to ensure that those investments do not come to fruition.

The question returns to Jesper Skalberg Karlsson: Why do you make that type of decision when you want to take increased state responsibility and when you know that we need that electricity?

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I interpret member Olovsson's answer as that it was the board's fault that Ringhals 1 and 2 were closed, that board which the S- and MP-government appointed.

Let me look forward instead. The Social Democrats claim government power in the autumn. At the same time, we see how Vänsterpartiet wants to spend 50 billion on offshore wind power. That investment alone would increase the Swedish national debt by approximately 1 percentage point. Miljöpartiet demands a stop to new nuclear power and does not intend to sit in a government that enables it. Centerpartiet is not on board with the tax policy that the other parties on the left side want to pursue. They do not want 40, 50, or 60 billion in tax increases. They want tax cuts of approximately 4 billion.

How on earth are the Social Democrats and Fredrik Olovsson going to pull off that red-green mess?

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats are, as usual, running for election on the policies that we believe are absolutely most important for Sweden. We are prepared to work with those parties, other than the Sweden Democrats, who stand for office after the election. We have succeeded with this before. We have held government power for a fairly long time in Sweden, and we have almost never had our own majority. It is a good proof of how we can build a society together with others.

I do not think it is the best argument to criticize Vänsterpartiet for wanting to build wind power for 50 billion – when at the same time 250 is allocated to expand nuclear power – and to refer to the fact that it affects state finances and builds up state debt.

We believe that the state needs to do more in this area. We have allocated as much as the government. We think that the money should be used for both nuclear power and offshore wind power and any other large-scale energy production.

In the energy area, we see that this would not help particularly much in principle. It does not help much that there are four Tidö parties that have a majority for a period of four years, and then another group comes along that wants something else for four years. This really requires long-term thinking and that we reach an agreement together. Therefore, I think it is good that most parties are now agreeing that an energy preparation is needed after the election. The question is why the Moderaterna have not already ensured that such a thing is in place. It is probably the only party that does not clearly say that this is something one wants to work on together across the block boundaries.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I share many of the points that the Social Democrats and Fredrik Olovsson have regarding energy issues. It is about tightened grid regulation, energy efficiency, technology neutrality, and a focus on rapid expansion. But there is one issue where I feel the Social Democrats are completely missing.

I have been to conferences, seminars, debates, and site visits, and I do not believe I have met a single Social Democrat there. I am speaking about small-scale hydropower. This absence is also visible in the reservations that exist. There is no talk at all about small-scale hydropower. There is, of course, talk about the potential to expand capacity; that exists, not least in small-scale hydropower. But there is nothing said about the trials that are currently being undergone.

My question to Fredrik Olovsson and the Social Democrats is: What does S actually want to do to save small-scale hydropower? Or is the silence a sign that one stands behind the government's current agenda which leads to powerful evictions?

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I have also visited small-scale hydropower to both obtain information and see the potential that exists within it. In very many places, there is truly a concern. There is a concern that more power production will be removed from areas where it is needed because new EU rules are to be implemented, where we are also a bit late.

We are, of course, very interested in what solutions the government will come up with in this area. A government bill is to be submitted a bit later this year, for example. We can hope that it can solve this problem. But during the mandate period, it has been incredibly poor craftsmanship on the government's part. This was something that, immediately after the election, it was claimed that could be solved quickly and easily, and now we see that the years have passed and that nothing has actually happened. The testing has been paused, started and paused. It naturally does not provide much credibility – if one wants to make large investments. We have also seen how the fund has had to close in periods, but now it is open again to also finance the measures in the environmental area that may need to be made.

We really hope that the measures that can be taken during the spring will solve this problem. Otherwise, it is naturally an important issue for the next mandate period.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! It is great that Fredrik Olovsson has also been out on site visits, because it is very clear that there is a significant difference between being on site and seeing how things actually look and being behind a desk. That is one of the fundamental problems here.

The Social Democrats are concerned and interested in what the government is going to do. I completely agree that it has been a terribly poor piece of craftsmanship. It has been clumsy, and it has been poorly managed with pauses, starts and pauses, not least when the fund has had to do the same thing. We know, however, what the government intends to come up with. There is a Government Offices referral; it is very clear. If one reads it and analyzes it, it is also extremely clear that this does not help small-scale hydropower. It is designed to help large-scale hydropower.

We heard a lot of criticism against the government from the Social Democrats. And we heard that this will spill over into the next mandate period – it certainly will. What I did not hear was a single proposal on what the Social Democrats want to do to solve the situation. I would have very much liked to have heard that. One can read what the Center Party has written in debate articles, reservations, and other things. There are quite a few different proposals there on how we should take this forward. But I have still only heard government criticism from S. I share that. But what does one want to do oneself to handle the situation, so that we do not get these outbursts?

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! We have been clear from the beginning that we do not want to see hydropower lose more than one and a half terawatt-hours. That was what we entered this process with, when the national plan was decided from the start. It has been a very troublesome journey since then for hydropower. Furthermore, there has truly been a risk that this will spill over onto more large-scale hydropower.

Overall, we do not see that there is particularly large room to reduce the extraction from hydropower. This applies generally but naturally not least in those parts of Sweden where we have the greatest problems. In southern Sweden, it is of course particularly important that it can remain.

Now that the trials are to be carried out, it is important that the regulatory framework that exists fundamentally works in the way it was intended to do from the beginning. But it is also important that there are sufficient funds in the fund to carry out the environmental measures that are required, because they will also need to be carried out.

When the government presents its policy in this area, if not too long from now, we will see which problems potentially remain. We will handle that then. Just like Rickard Nordin, I am probably not entirely optimistic that this would solve all problems. I also do not believe that the potential exists to build more hydropower, to upgrade it further, and to introduce pumped storage and other things into this system. There is great potential to do this. It would be possible to do more generally speaking in the hydropower area. Given the important role hydropower has as regulating power, not least in southern Sweden, it is an effort that would be immensely important for the entire electricity system.

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is in a decisive energy policy situation. It is primarily not about choices of technology, but about jobs, security, and justice. It is about households that want to be able to plan their everyday lives, about companies that want to invest, and about a country that wants a growing economy.

Much is moving in the right direction. Growth is now above the EU average, unemployment has decreased for six months in a row, and the national debt is lower compared to when the last Social Democratic budget was passed. If Sweden is to return to the top, we need to maintain the course.

Madam Speaker! During January and February, we have received a reminder that the electricity system has weaknesses. Cold periods in combination with low wind power production pushed prices up significantly in electricity price areas 3 and 4. These are not just frightening figures – it is families with children wondering if the money will cover both the electricity bill and everyday life. It is companies hesitating before making investments.

This is not a coincidence. It is not bad luck. It is the consequence of political choices.

It should be noted that we find ourselves in a restless world. Russia's full-scale war against Ukraine is now entering its fifth year. Europe's energy markets are still sensitive to gas prices, which are currently being affected by the situation in Iran. Countries such as Poland, France, and Finland are now strengthening their energy security by investing in new nuclear power and more predictable production. They have concluded that energy security is security policy. Sweden must also do so.

Madam Speaker! We must be honest about how we ended up here. For many years, the left-wing parties decommissioned fully functioning nuclear power prematurely. Reactors that delivered stable, predictable, and fossil-free electricity were shut down for political reasons, not because they were exhausted or lacked significance, but because an ideological struggle against nuclear power was being waged.

The result is a more weather-dependent electricity system. When it is very windy, we have plenty of electricity. When it is cold and calm, we experience shortages and high prices. That was exactly what we saw during the first months of this year. It is actually simple: If you remove stable electricity production, you remove stable prices. In the same way, it is impossible to consume during the winter the electricity that we exported to Germany during the summer.

Madam Speaker! It is not the wind that has made the political decisions. It is not the temperature that has voted here in the Riksdag. It was the left-wing parties that mothballed functional nuclear power prematurely, and when electricity prices soar during cold, windless winter days, it is ordinary families and companies that have to pay the bill. It is that simple. Today we have precisely the weather-dependent electricity system that the left-wing parties have dreamed of. My view is that the Swedish people are not entirely satisfied with it when they open the electricity bill.

Madam Speaker! Sweden faces a historic electrification. Industry is planning investments in fossil-free production of steel, batteries, and hydrogen. Svenska kraftnät and other assessors point out that electricity consumption could double by 2045. It is an enormous opportunity for our country, not least for regions such as Gotland and the whole of southern Sweden, which need more jobs and sustainable and inclusive growth.

But investments require predictability. No one invests billions in new production if electricity cannot be delivered when and where it is needed. No one moves advanced industry to a country where the power balance is uncertain during cold winter days.

Therefore, energy policy must be based on realism. Sun and wind are important parts of the energy mix and shall continue to be expanded where they are accepted and demanded. A modern industrial country, however, cannot build its entire electricity system on intermittent power sources.

That is why new nuclear power is a central part of Sweden's energy future. It is particularly important for regions such as Skåne, which have lost over 11,000 jobs as a result of the power shortage in the grid, despite the fact that the region otherwise has good conditions for industrial and technological development.

Madam Speaker! This is ultimately about the social contract. Those who get up early, run businesses, work in healthcare or in industry and pay taxes should be able to trust that the electricity works and that the electricity bill does not feel like a robbery. One should not have to worry that political decisions make the energy system weaker.

The Moderates' line is clear: We want more of everything, including nuclear power. In parallel, the government is continuing to work on renewing the electricity grids, speeding up the permit processes, and cutting through the bureaucracy. That is how we create the conditions for a growing economy where jobs increase and investments become larger.

The alternative – the turn to the left – is a return to a policy that shuts down functioning nuclear power and makes the electricity system more vulnerable, quite simply a policy that ensures we have [power] next January.

Madam Speaker! Let me briefly mention that the situation in the world around us requires us to prepare for disruptions, crises, and attacks. Many parts are included in that preparedness, but without well-managed public finances, there is no room to act when the big waves hit.

It should be said here that Sweden has well-managed public finances. We have recently regained the highest credit rating from the rating agency Moody's and thus belong to one of the nine countries that have triple-A at all institutes. After a period of high inflation, weak resource utilization, zero interest rates, and quantitative easing, we have regained control. Order and discipline in the finances dampen uncertainty in the economy. Above all, well-managed public finances give us buffers and room for maneuver. That is the only way we can manage and counteract crises. Think of that when the left-wing parties want to drive Sweden with large deficits to finance new dream projects!

Madam Speaker! Sweden is on the right track, but we are not there yet. We have come a good way through by removing obstacles for new nuclear power, developing a robust financing model, and laying the foundation for long-term rules of the game. Now we must complete that work, and then we cannot let those who want the least determine the speed.

Madam Speaker! Energy policy is not a technical detail. It is the foundation for a growing economy. When we look out at the world, we see that no rich countries are poor in energy. We had that insight for a long time in Sweden. We need to find our way back there.

Let us therefore build an electricity system that holds up in both high and low pressure, in both peacetime and times of crisis. Sweden deserves that.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! We hear from Jesper Skalberg Karlsson that gas prices are skyrocketing. He warns of disruptions, crises, and attacks. These are serious matters; we live in a very serious time.

Then one also needs to draw conclusions from that. Europe has begun to phase out a dependence on Russian gas and is replacing it with Qatari gas, which also has proven to be deeply problematic. In addition to the issue of human rights in Qatar, we now see disruptions also regarding the gas. We also have a larger import of American gas, from a country that has a president who is, to say the least, capricious with authoritarian tendencies.

So, one needs to draw conclusions from this, and the conclusion is not to find another country to import from but probably to do more ourselves. If one wants to be less sensitive to disruptions, crises, and attacks, then one produces more oneself. Biogas, we have quite a large potential to produce ourselves, but we do not, even though it could mean a higher self-sufficiency.

What is the government doing then, one wonders. This government first shock-increased the tax due to certain EU decisions. It costs 5 kronor more at the pump to refuel a biogas car. They did not put much effort into solving this; it took one and a half years to get another regulation in place. We also have no production targets, despite there being a completed investigation that points to exactly that. We have had a major awakening in the industry, which wants to produce significantly more biogas, but they are not getting the conditions required from politics.

My question to Jesper Skalberg Karlsson is therefore whether he can mention anything that the government has done during this mandate period to increase the production of biogas.

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to MP Rickard Nordin for the question! As MP Nordin mentions, we took the fight against the EU when it came to the tax exemption for biogas. It was good. It was right.

When it comes to the conditions for biogas in Sweden, many previous initiatives are rolling over. Kraftlyftet is a new initiative where the regulations were finalized in January and the application period is underway. It closes somewhere around May 7. I look forward to those projects.

Madam Speaker! If we are to succeed in producing more in Sweden, we need to utilize all the resources we have, not least the Swedish forest. Here I note that those who stand up for utilization, those who stand up for development, and those who want an active forestry are to the right of the center in Swedish politics. I do not note any truly large initiatives to utilize the forest better from the left-wing parties – the Center Party perhaps being a slight exception.

Madam Speaker! I believe there is more to be done on the topic of biogas. I also believe that new technologies such as gasification can play an important role. But the Bioeconomy Inquiry, which has been submitted, is being prepared within the Government Offices. I do not, of course, precede that preparation.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Did the government win the fight for biogas? It was a very lame fight in that case, with one hand behind the back. It took one and a half years. Furthermore, there was no compensation from the government's side for those affected by this during that time. There was quite a lot that could have been done. For example, it costs more to inspect a biogas car than to inspect a car with an internal combustion engine. There are proposals to compensate for this.

The investigation that Jesper Skalberg Karlsson refers to has been being prepared for a very long time. It is easy to say that it is being prepared and that one should not preempt the result, but in practice, it means that one will not do anything. There is nothing in the government bill at all in this area. It is deeply problematic.

Uncertainty has been created, first through the increased tax – which was not the government's fault – and then by not taking the fight properly and getting this in place. It came a year and a half later, and the costs it has entailed have resulted in a deep notch in the curve. We have seen the same thing regarding Klimatklivet, where they removed biogas on the agricultural side only to stop it back again instead of doing as the Centerpartiet has said and widening the whole thing, finding more areas and doing more on that theme to achieve a significantly larger production.

I do not really know what criticism of parties to the left regarding the forest has to do with the Center Party's policy. The Center Party is very clear. If any party is clear that ownership rights and the use of forest are important, it is the Center Party.

When the Committee on the Constitution was to look at the right of ownership, the Moderaterna were not interested. They were more interested in trying to throw out people with a foreign background from Sweden than in looking at the right of ownership for real. Only after the Centerpartiet had complained and criticized the Moderaterna publicly did they take action and open up to making changes to the right of ownership.

My question remains, then: What is the government actually doing for biogas? Not a single thing has happened during this mandate period.

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! When the Moderates and the coalition parties took power in 2022, Sweden had double-digit inflation. Despite the fact that the Center Party went to the election on a platform of saving the rural areas, the price of diesel was 28 kronor per liter. We had major problems to solve. We solved the inflation first, because that was most important. We have since tried to remedy the prolonged recession – first the inflation, then the recession. Regarding fuel prices, they have decreased significantly, by approximately 5 kronor as a result of political decisions and by approximately 5 kronor as a result of world market prices.

Let me also say that the automotive industry has chosen a different path than biogas. We see that what the automotive industry has chosen globally is electrification. There, very large investments are being made in both new electricity production as well as charging infrastructure and better tax advantages, for example, when one charges at the workplace. That being said, biogas is not unimportant. It can be used, for example, in ferry traffic, for trucks or for buses.

I am convinced that we can do more. But, Madam Speaker, I do not believe that it is possible to do much more together with the parties on the other side of politics. Then there will be less cultivation, less management, and less development in our entire country because they do not want the forest and other parts to be used or cultivated. They want them to be museums and nature reserves. I do not believe that is the way forward for a growing and sustainable bioeconomy in our country.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! I must begin by correcting Jesper Skalberg Karlsson's mendacious historiography. I can quote Lars G Nordström, Vattenfall's then-chairman of the board, who stated in SvD:

"There was no pressure from the political side. It was a purely commercial decision. We opted to invest in the five reactors that had the longest technical lifespan and where the least investment was required to upgrade them."

"We had seven reactors running. One in Ringhals that performed really poorly and ran on a dispensation; it had, among other things, corrosion damage in the bottom plate. And that one was connected to another reactor in Ringhals production-wise."

"The owners of Oskarshamn nuclear power plant were in the same situation. They had already in January 2014 signaled that they were preparing to shut down reactor 1, Sweden's oldest reactor, which was put into operation in 1972."

One might think it was right or wrong and that it was an incorrect or correct assessment purely commercially. But those were the decisions that were made, and it was after we concluded a broad energy agreement. We removed the power tax completely, for example, so that cannot be blamed. Had it depended on that, one would have changed those decisions.

This leads us into the reality that actually prevails. Energy production will fall below the age limit. Between 2035 and 2045 we will, as I mentioned, lose approximately 10 terawatt-hours per year because buildings and so on only last for a certain amount of time.

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson claimed that more of everything was needed. We can agree on that, for that matter, but then my question – which resembles the one to Tobias Andersson – is what we have received more of. Has the expansion rate increased or decreased? What has resulted in an improved balance of effects?

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me first say that politics sets the framework for energy policy. Politics is involved and poking into the energy market more than in many other policy areas. The Green Party also wants to increase that governance. It is therefore not possible, with honor fully intact, to say that it was the big, evil market that closed nuclear power in Sweden. I am convinced that if the left-wing parties had wanted to save and extend the life of the existing nuclear power, it would have been possible.

Madam Speaker! One can also recall quotes from other leading energy experts, for example Janne Wallenius, who has calculated that the premature shutdown of nuclear power has cost Sweden in the magnitude of 1,000 billion. For the corresponding amount, I am convinced that one can build a new steel shell for a nuclear power plant.

Madam Speaker! A lot is happening in the energy sector. In addition to the investment in new planned fossil-free electricity production in southern Sweden, i.e., the expansion of nuclear power, efforts are being made regarding Kraftlyftet, which we look forward to taking full effect. We are trying to cut through the permit processes so that faster decisions can be made through a new licensing authority. We removed the harmful waste incineration tax, which placed an unnecessary burden on, for example, combined heat and power. We are happy to continue with deliberate tax cuts, with deliberate investments, which ensure that Sweden gets more electricity production – more of everything, but above all nuclear power.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting that Jesper Skalberg Karlsson speaks about Kraftlyftet. It is indeed a copy of the part of the Green Party's policy that was called Kraftsteget and which was about investing in green base power. That is good in itself, but then the criticism that we are spending too much money on this becomes a bit strange.

How many kilowatts has the government produced through Kraftlyftet and the other initiatives that have been made? I did not quite get an answer to that question. I also did not get an answer to the question of what has been added. I would also like to have an answer as to whether the power production, or the rate, is increasing or decreasing.

When it comes to extending the lifespan of existing reactors, it becomes interesting. This government wants nuclear power. Why then do they not choose to invest 50 billion in extending the lifespan of the reactors that already exist, as Jesper Skalberg Karlsson himself mentioned, instead of investing 840 billion in new nuclear power? The criticism that other parties are spending a lot of money appears quite ridiculous. What is being introduced here is pure planned economy.

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson raised an interesting aspect regarding utilizing biomass better. We can do this in a very simple way, namely by removing the tax for submitting surplus fuel to district heating. Then one can save biomass and utilize the biomass in a smarter way. Perhaps it can be used for more biofuels. Other parties listened to the Miljöpartiets proposal to do exactly this. The question is why it has not been implemented if one now wants biomass to be utilized smarter.

I would very much like to have answers to the questions that I have asked but have not received answers to.

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! 2,000 megawatts have been added to the power balance since the 2022 election, and it shows. In 2025, we had the lowest electricity prices in the entire EU.

One can also look at things that have been approved during the mandate period. Under the S-MP government, an offshore wind farm was approved. During this mandate period, we have approved two. Two is more than one. We have also connected ourselves better with Finland and can benefit from their investments in fossil-free and predictable nuclear power.

In area after area, the Swedish energy market is improving. Add to that the fact that the investments in the transmission grid now amount to approximately 20 billion kronor per year.

What do we get for the money then? For example, new power cables are now being built to Gotland. It is an investment of 9.8 billion that, for seven years under the S-MP government, only existed in various investigations. Three investigations were carried out, but no decisions were made.

I think this shows in a fairly good way that there is a lot of talk during the left-wing parties' time in power. There are very large visions, but not so much gets done. My conviction, Madam Speaker, is that it will be a repetition of the same thing we have seen previously if the Swedish people give the left-wing parties the confidence to take over in the autumn. Those on the left who want the least would then get to set the speed for the energy policy. Then it will probably not just be a slowdown, but it will probably be electricity rationing. Because that is what these parties' policies actually lead to.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Let me first comment on what was said in the exchanges just now.

It is impressive if the Social Democrats have so much power that they can influence inflation even in Finland. One gets the impression that it was the Social Democrats' fault that inflation was at sky-high levels in 2022. Finland, however, had roughly the same inflation. It is impressive if one can sell the narrative that everything is the Social Democrats' fault.

I go back to what I intended to say, and I will start with something positive for once. The Riksdag is in agreement on an issue concerning energy policy. It concerns what comes after this debate; I believe that the chairman of the Committee on Industry and Trade and Fredrik Olovsson will say something about it.

What the EU Commission is attempting to do is to use bottleneck revenues from Swedish electricity customers for investments in offshore cables from Sweden. Their greed is getting on my nerves, I must say. There are 65 or 85 billion – depending on who you listen to – sitting at the National Debt Office. The Commission is now trying to take 25 percent of these funds and use them, for example, for more cables out from Sweden. As I said, we are at least in agreement on this issue, and I am glad about that.

Madam Speaker! Now the fun is over. We are not usually in agreement on everything in the area of energy policy. I will go into what, according to me and Vänsterpartiet, are failures regarding energy policy.

I take the liberty of starting by describing what has happened during the last decade and a bit. In 2014, the highest electricity price was 1 SEK and 12 öre per kilowatt-hour in price area 4 and 42 öre per kilowatt-hour in price area 1. We exported 15.6 terawatt-hours. The highest price for electricity ever paid by a Swede was on August 30, 2022, between 19.00 and 20.00. The price was 8 SEK and 50 öre in price area 4.

Doesn't this say something about the model we price our own produced electricity with? We exported 33 terawatt-hours during 2022. If the majority of the Swedish people do not think something is wrong with the system when such is a fact, I do not know how fact-resistant one can become.

Madam Speaker! I will return to the Left Party's view regarding the solution to the problem. We have no reservation on this, but I will return to our policy. It concerns the dysfunctional pricing model that affects Swedish electricity customers today.

Another thing that happened in 2016 was that the Social Democratic government reached an energy policy agreement with M, KD, C, and MP. It was actually a good agreement, where they, for example, established that nuclear power can be built at existing sites as long as it is done on market terms, that is, without state support. I and V had difficulty joining due to a wording in a congress decision, but that is history today.

One thing one must be honest about: It is not good when energy policy is subject to election promises every four years. It does not benefit Sweden.

Madam Speaker! I go back to the agreement from 2016. The Moderates and KD realized that it is not easy to get investments in new nuclear power when it states that it should be 100 percent renewable in the energy system by 2040. They wanted to use the word fossil-free instead of the word renewable, and therefore they left the agreement in 2019.

What happened next? Well, they won the election and formed a government with the help of the Sweden Democrats, regardless of what Ulf Kristersson promised Hédi Fried.

Well – they promised that new nuclear power would be built and that the first spade would be turned within the parliamentary term. But it didn't help to replace the word renewable with the word fossil-free. The investments are conspicuously absent, so now they are looking to finance new nuclear power with state guarantees – at any cost.

As much as I would like to, I find it difficult to understand the other parties' position. If one does not allow room for other thoughts, even if it turns out that we can achieve sufficient production and power balance with other pieces of the puzzle, which are even cheaper, it has become a religion that nuclear power is needed.

To those listening to the debate, I must give an example of what is happening now. It is a fact, and it is the development that is occurring now. A while ago, Skellefteå Kraft invested in an upgrade of the Rengård hydropower plant which can increase the power output from 35 to 71 megawatts, that is to say, a doubling of the power output. How many such examples exist in our hydropower plants? All such things must be evaluated and impact-analyzed before we indebt future generations for something that might not even be needed.

The Minister for Energy has claimed several times that it is difficult or impossible to extract more power from our electricity system because there are so many volatile production types. But recently, Svenska kraftnät released figures for 2025 which showed that as many as 3,700 megawatts of new connections had been accepted. The Minister's narrative that only nuclear power can provide such effects is therefore incorrect.

The climate crisis is acute, and a systemic shift is needed to quickly transition Sweden and reduce emissions. To achieve a rapid and comprehensive climate transition, parts of society need to be electrified. That is simply the case. I actually believe that all parties agree on that.

As one of Europe's largest exporters of electricity, the Swedish energy system is to be considered robust. The production levels from Swedish hydropower, nuclear power, and wind power are intact, and production costs have not increased significantly during recent years. Nevertheless, Swedish families and industries are hit very hard by the dysfunctional pricing system, which causes us to be infected by the higher prices on the continent when we export there.

I and other representatives for Vänsterpartiet have for a long time pointed out the risks with the pricing model currently in place. We therefore advocate for a model where the domestic market is separated from the export market. This model, which is called the Beacon model or Swedish prices, means that the electricity consumed in Sweden is priced first, and then the surplus is exported at prevailing European prices. The model means that Sweden's four electricity price areas remain, so as not to jeopardize the industry's confidence in the cheaper electricity in northern Sweden, but are separated from the electricity that goes to export.

I visited SSAB a few weeks ago. They intend to invest 53 billion in new technology, which involves an electric arc furnace and hydrogen reduction. When I asked how much importance the low electricity prices in northern Sweden have, they answered that they are crucial.

I am, therefore, strongly critical that the government has not done enough to protect Swedish electricity customers from the horrific price peaks they are experiencing today. As we have heard here, the government has presented a high-cost protection for electricity in the budget which provides support if the electricity price over a month exceeds 1.50 on average. According to the Left Party, this is completely insufficient given what is happening today. We have proposed a protection that provides support if the price exceeds 75 öre, and it should be financed by the electricity companies' excess profits, with an insurance, not via the tax purse.

In addition to the proposal on Swedish prices which I have tried to explain and which would make electricity cheaper for Swedish consumers, I see that our electricity grid owners are exploiting the system by raising their grid fees as much as possible. Here, the state should take the lead and ensure that society owns more of the infrastructure for society-critical functions, which electricity distribution is.

Then there is, as we have heard, something in the works that will lead to further price increases on our electricity bills, namely the so-called power tariffs. It is an EU proposal again, as far as I understand. It is typical that the EU should try to decide how we should be charged for the use of our electricity grids during peak loads.

Madam Speaker! I want to highlight our reservation 2 in the report, which concerns the fact that we need to have quantified sub-targets. For this to be possible, as stated, long-term and well-founded energy policy decisions are needed that provide stable conditions for the investments that are required. One step in this is, in my opinion, an ambitious target image that does not solely aim at desirable conditions in a distant future, where new nuclear power seems to be the government's solution to everything.

The government's fixation on 2045 as a target year means that investments in renewables are being postponed. Unlike the government, I believe that clear sub-targets are needed for how much electricity must be added. We have already heard about our sub-targets here from other parties, namely: 12 terawatt-hours per year, with frequent follow-ups, preferably more often than every five years, and perhaps 70 terawatt-hours by the year 2030.

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Lahti, for the speech! I particularly appreciated that it was not only spoken about individual branches of the armed forces but also about the electricity system as a whole.

Madam Speaker! Put simply, one could say that Sweden has a surplus of electricity during the summer and a deficit of electricity during the winter. It is, of course, a bit more technical because much of it is about capacity.

I noticed that Member Lahti wants more stable prices and that he wants to remedy the power problem. I have a question for Member Lahti there. In the Left Party's budget proposal, 50 billion kronor are allocated to offshore wind – money that is to be borrowed. That would not remedy the power problem during the winter. In his statement, Member Lahti also said that they want to separate the Swedish electricity market from the European one. They want, so to speak, to cut the cables to the outside world, which would mean that during the winter we cannot import power.

My question to Member Lahti is: How will more offshore wind and fewer cables to the continent lead to price stability and remedy the power problem?

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

Birger Lahti (V)

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

It would be very strange if the sea wind did not blow in the winter and if it would not give more effect if we invest in offshore wind that provides, let's say, 70 terawatt-hours by 2030. In that case, I have missed something, and I believe that even Jesper Skalberg Karlsson might have missed something. Offshore wind power is more stable than land-based wind power, and even the land-based works in the winter.

People use words like cutting cables. Vänsterpartiet has never claimed that we should cut any cables to the continent. The only thing Vänsterpartiet says is that it is not reasonable that we have a pricing model that causes us, when we have a surplus, to be infected by the prices that people are prepared to pay on the continent.

We have seen the example of Aurora Line 1, which was put into operation two to three months ago. I have never received so many calls from citizens in northern Sweden as I have now. Pensioners are calling who say that they have a pension of 11,000 but that they have received an electricity bill of 10,000, something that has never happened before. It is because they in Finland were prepared to buy our electricity, and then we received higher prices in electricity price area 1.

(cont.)

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