The long-term direction of energy policy

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! Man's ability to make energy accessible and use it is perhaps her greatest achievement - this is because energy is work, prosperity and growth. Before man discovered that it was possible to convert the heat energy from burning coal into mechanical power and electricity, we all had to toil from dawn to dusk out in the fields or in the forest solely to be able to provide for ourselves and our families.

First we used the heat from fossil fuels, then we harnessed the fall of the rivers, and after that we have learned to utilize the energy released when billions of atoms are split. By converting this into electricity, we have created a workforce and a prosperity that our ancestors could not even dream of.

The electricity we produce in Sweden every year corresponds to over 1.1 billion full-time workers. Every person in Sweden has every day over 100 invisible helpers who chop wood, refine ore, build trucks, wash clothes and give us news and entertainment from all over the world - simultaneously.

Too few understand what incredible power lies behind the two holes in the wall, how important it is that the power system that exists behind them always functions and that it always needs to be ready to be expanded.

Madam Speaker! Today we have the honor of debating the long-term direction for energy policy and the future of the power system - modern society's invisible workhorse and its cornerstone.

Unfortunately, we are doing this starting from a crisis. Previous red-green governments have shown very little understanding for this issue. These governments chose populism and political radicalism over Sweden's best interests. Nuclear power plants were forced to close, new projects were stopped, combined heat and power was punished with taxes, and small-scale hydropower was to be dismantled - not because of safety or economics, but solely because it was considered the wrong type of power. They simply did not like the type of power.

The Moderates and the Tidö parties do not give up just because we have been dealt a bad hand. We have the goal clearly set on recreating the robust and long-term sustainable, clean power systems that every Swede deserves and expects.

To do this, we go back to the basics. We set a long-term goal with checkpoints to get a clear direction. We aim for an annual energy production of 300 terawatt-hours by 2045. It is an important goal, Madam Speaker, but it is actually not the decisive goal.

The more important part is that we are now setting clear requirements. These requirements are in what is called the security of supply goal. We state what we, from the political side, expect the power system to be capable of and clearly point out that it is the expert authority, Svenska kraftnät, that is responsible for ensuring that the power system's condition is maintained as well as alerting the government when that is not the case. We choose, however, not to decide the details. We are politicians; we point out the direction but leave it to the experts to develop the detailed requirements that are needed - and the experts in this case are naturally the engineers, not professional pundits in all sorts of places in the public debate.

We have noted that there are some opposition politicians who do not agree with this order, but instead consider themselves fully capable of specifying the parameters for, for example, dead net start. We choose to take a somewhat more humble stance – as always.

Through the security of supply goal, we ensure that the power system can be expanded in a sustainable way, that stability is maintained, and that there is capacity to establish new industry without electricity prices skyrocketing.

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats and the Centre do not reject only this security of supply goal, but also the absolutely crucial power goal. By doing so, they also reject pure technical facts and laws of nature, for in a secure power supply system, both the energy and the power must be sufficient.

We are clear in this bill that it is not enough to merely have an energy surplus on an annual basis. Electricity production on an annual basis is a measure that is as misleading as it is irrelevant. Overproduction of, for example, wind power during the summer cannot be used during the winter half-year, when electricity is needed most. All electricity consumers, from private individuals to industries, are dependent on there being electricity all year round, every hour of the day.

Turning off and switching on industrial production and municipal welfare activities depending on when the wind blows or the sun shines is neither desirable nor possible. No activity, especially not the industrial activity that Sweden's prosperity is built on, can function and be competitive under those conditions.

Madam Speaker! In order to try to gather a broad majority for this important issue, cross-bloc talks were ongoing for half a year. After these, we can state that the opposition is split.

The Green Party and the Left Party have clearly declared that they want to continue on the radical path that gave us the recent years' energy crisis and has driven industrialized countries like Germany to the brink of ruin. But the Green Party and the Left Party at least have an energy policy, and both the Green Party and the Left Party have been constructive in this even though we stand far apart in terms of solutions - unlike the Social Democrats and the Center Party, who have not been able to present any concrete proposals but have only considered that everything the government does is totally wrong.

It is distressing, Madam Speaker, that Sweden's largest party shows a total lack of interest in the power system and the invisible workforce that ensures we no longer live in poverty.

Today we stand behind an energy proposal that, for the first time since the 80s, is completely technology-neutral. None of the basic requirements prevent any fossil-free power source. All parties within the Tidö agreement understand the importance of the issue and are prepared to take responsibility. We propose neither radical solutions nor that the issue be ignored. The time when politics handled the power system as a toy is over.

We care that it works and therefore choose an approach that has been proven for decades and which, when implemented, will with one hundred percent probability work. We ensure that the invisible workforce corresponding to 1 billion people remains and can become larger, and that modern society can remain and develop.

With this, Madam Speaker, I move for the approval of the bill in its entirety.

(Applause)

In this speech, Anna af Sillén and Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (both M) agreed.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! First, I must unfortunately question Mats Green's literacy, given that the Center Party submitted very clear proposals to the energy policy direction bill that the government subsequently presented. There were a number of goal formulations, a number of questions to the government that we did not receive answers to, and several pages of well-written input. That there were no concrete comments must therefore be considered a matter of Mats Green and his literacy. But that was not why I requested the floor.

Madam Speaker! In Western Sweden, 25,000 jobs are threatened if the electricity needs are not met by 2030, according to a report from Västra Götalandsregionen that recently arrived and which the county administrative board has also cited. They fortunately also have several proposals on how to meet the needs in such a short period. It is largely about land-based and offshore wind power, in combination with solar cells, efficiency and storage, as well as, to some extent, combined heat and power. We see that the exact same assessment is being made by Skåne's power commission.

Despite this, the government does not make decisions in the cases regarding offshore wind farms that are on the table, which could help. The County Administrative Board receives no instructions on how to handle solar cell parks. Investigations regarding compensation to neighbors are gathering dust on the government's desks. And Moderate municipal councilors are among those who are most resistant when it comes to new local energy production, even though Mats Green stands in the speaker's chair and says that one has nothing against certain types of power.

My question to Mats Green is therefore: If one does not want to make these decisions, how is the electricity demand for 2030 to be met?

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! There is an old TV classic called Fawlty Towers, in Swedish Pang i bygget. In one episode, they are to receive German guests, and they make a little note to self: Don't mention the war! Whatever you do, do not mention the war! Then, naturally, it becomes the only thing they actually mention.

I cannot help but think of that episode when I hear the Center Party here. Their equivalent to "Don't mention the war!" is: Don't mention efficiency for all the butter in Småland! Just talk energy, but whatever you do, never ever mention efficiency!

We can talk about energy as much as we want. We see that we will have a fairly substantial expansion of almost all electricity production, for example, wind power. I note that this government has said yes to more offshore wind farms than the previous government managed to do during eight years in power. It is clear that all of this is needed.

But what is most needed in the industry-heavy regions of Västra Götaland and Skåne is predictable, secure power - nuclear power, for example, combined heat and power, and perhaps also gas turbines. This is something that the Center Party says no to in every respect and fully.

We must be honest: The ideal power sources that the Center Party wants, that is to say only weather-dependent power sources, constitute the power system that Sweden is very close to and which has put us in all the problems we have now. The Center Party should therefore actually state that this is our ideal society. But that is not the case, and what Västra Götaland and Skåne need is more predictable, stable power - and also more weather-dependent power. I note that the Center Party, even regarding Skåne, says no to all predictable power. They will never get nuclear power back or, in fact, anything else. We therefore have the opposite strategy and starting point in this, Madam Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! This government is terrible when it comes to offshore wind power, and it does not help that the previous government was just as bad. We pointed that out then as well. To use this as an excuse for not making decisions on matters that have been on the table for several years and which would make a big difference for the electricity price, not least in southern Sweden, is bad, quite simply.

If you listen to Svenska kraftnät, which is responsible for the overall electricity system, you hear them say that in the short term it is wind and solar that should be expanded. Energimyndigheten says the same thing, as do Västra Götalandsregionen and Skånes effektkommission.

We will, of course, supplement. We can supplement with gas turbines; it works perfectly well to run them on both hydrogen and biogas, if that were the case. It works perfectly well with combined heat and power. That the Center Party would not be in favor of this is something Mats Green has made up. It is completely unserious. Stop with that type of argumentation – it simply isn't true.

Mats Green highlights nuclear power. It is very possible that new nuclear power will be needed in Sweden eventually. But it won't be in place by 2030. It is completely impossible. Even everyone who is expected to build nuclear power says that it will not be in place.

We know that 25,000 jobs are threatened in Western Sweden by 2030. Still, the government does not make the necessary decisions. It concerns a combination of different measures. If Mats Green had listened, he would have heard that it is not just about wind and sun. It is about combined heat and power and about efficiency and storage. And it is perfectly feasible to build such an electricity system. Svenska kraftnät also says that. It is enough to look at the latest long-term market analysis. It is perfectly feasible to do these things.

The big question, then, is: Why is the business community not even being listened to? They want this. Vattenfall says that if there is to be new nuclear power, the situation must be resolved even in the short term, and in that case, it is land- and sea-based wind power that applies. This government displays a total ignorance when it comes to the business community's needs. How, Mats Green, are you going to meet the needs by 2030? Nuclear power does not, in fact, solve the problems. It might solve the problems in the longer term, but not by 2030. Answer the question now!

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! All the proposals and decisions that Rickard Nordin is requesting are underway in the near future. But Rickard Nordin sticks to his note to self: Never ever mention effect, under any circumstances whatsoever!

Why then does the Center Party show such a total lack of interest in reducing the power shortage in southern Sweden? The security of supply goal and its underlying requirements for available power at a regional level is, as stated, the most important tool for managing our primary proposal. The Center Party says absolutely no to this. Industrial activity should only be allowed to continue when the wind blows and the sun shines, especially during the summer half-year. Industrial holidays and the like, we can therefore cancel – then one should not be on holiday, but then one should work. During the winter, however, one can possibly take a holiday.

So the industries should only run when the wind blows and the sun shines, according to the Center Party's proposal. This is a fact. One can stand and say that it is not so, but that is how it is.

My second question, or my second assertion, concerns why the Center Party does not want to ensure that companies can be established and receive the power they need to carry out a green transition. If one does not believe in planned energy or power, one cannot ensure this or give that promise.

My third and perhaps final statement, which is also an objection to the Centre Party's energy policy, concerns why there are no proposals from the Centre Party on how to handle the main problem, that is, the power shortage, either in the short or in the long term.

These are the questions Rickard Nordin will need to answer later, when he gives his speech.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to start by thanking Mats Green for the introduction to the speech, regarding the importance of electricity - incredibly important and good! Then it went downhill quite quickly, from this peak in the speech. I can also state that we have not only in the parliamentary rostrum, in debate articles and in other ways told the government what we consider important regarding the direction of energy policy but also submitted written responses describing how we thought this bill should look.

One of the most important things we have highlighted is precisely the goal of the energy policy to produce more electricity by 2030, but something such does not exist in the government's bill. It is not only we Social Democrats who are calling for this, but the industry and the business sector do as well.

The other day, representatives for the very industry that Mats Green is talking about – heavy industry – wrote about the need for a goal for 2030. They say that the industry's needs for 2030 do not align with the political focus for 2045. The equation does not add up.

We have as a country enormous opportunities to manage the transition that we are now facing or actually have already begun. We have enormous opportunities to become winners in Sweden. All around the world, other countries are running faster and faster, but the government does not want to do things here and now.

The question to Mats Green is: Why not make these decisions, set the goal, and come up with measures that truly ensure that the industry gets the opportunity to develop throughout the entire country?

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! The 2030 goal that is wanted to be set may play less of a role in practice, because it will still be achieved with already decided permits and upcoming permits regarding both wind power and, can we assume, a substantial share of solar power. It is therefore only a matter of writing in water.

I can think it is a bit sad that one of our governing parties, which usually places some weight on accountability, behaves in this way. They are selling out the entire power system just because the radical coalition parties think something else. That is why Sweden is properly in the shit when it comes to this – excuse my language, Madam Speaker! The situation is significantly worse than it should have been. We have gone from the world's best power system to an extremely problematic situation.

I have a number of questions that I will later pose to the Social Democrats, but I can take them now. One never wants to mention the word capacity from either the Center Party, the Social Democrats, the Green Party, or the Left Party. We have brought 10,000 megawatts of wind power into the power system since 2014. We have more electricity production than ever. But despite this, or rather because of this, we have a situation with sky-high electricity prices, an unstable power system, and a situation where there was a risk – and the danger is not over yet – that we would have to shut down parts of the country because we did not have sufficient capacity, as is currently being done in South Africa.

I have three questions for the Social Democrats: How do you want to solve the power shortage? How are you going to maintain a fundamental and reasonable stability in the power system? Will the Social Democrats let the radical support parties steer the red-green energy policy? We shall not go down that path again.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not know whether I myself or the industry, which is waiting for a decision, received any decision from Mats Green now. It is apparently going to be resolved, so therefore one absolutely does not want to set any goal. Previously it has always been said, not least from Ebba Busch, that it is not possible to do what we demand, even though the industry says that it is fully possible and that other countries are in the middle of exactly that process. Swedish companies are receiving the largest export orders they have ever received from other countries that are going to make the transition. They order, but Mats Green is waiting for something else. I think it is irresponsible.

I think that Mats Green, during the time he is now sitting in the Riksdag and we can evaluate him as well, has a responsibility to ensure that we get enough electricity production in the coming years, so that the companies that now want to invest all around Sweden get the chance to do so. That requires not only electricity production, but it also requires the expansion of our power grid. More batteries are required. Power electronics are required. We need everything we can muster in the short term. It is about working as hard as possible with all available resources to truly be winners in the race. Why do the Moderaterna not want to be part of winning? It creates jobs, prosperity, and everything else that Mats Green began his speech with.

We are to discuss goals here today. An important goal we had was to produce at least 60 terawatt-hours more electricity by 2030. Does Mats Green mean that this will happen? Ebba Busch has said that it is not possible to do.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! It is precisely the impatience that is why we now have a government bill to make a decision on. We have done more in two years than the previous government managed in eight years when it comes to upgrading the power system. As for phasing it out, you succeeded beyond expectations, I must say.

What does the industry say then? The industry says, above all, that they want stable, secure, and predictable electricity. Nuclear power is part of this. In that regard, the industry has also demanded a statement from the Social Democrats, who in some contexts have said that they absolutely do not have anything against nuclear power, but when it really comes down to it, they vote against everything. They have also said no to all nuclear power in southern Sweden. They do not want to know of it at all.

Then we have the weather-dependent power. We will continue to feed a very large amount of weather-dependent power into the systems, just as we have received it since 2014. But you can push as much energy as you want into the system - it doesn't matter if we don't get any power out of it.

I also note that Fredrik Olovsson refuses to take the word effect in his mouth. That is exactly the point. We cannot continue to be a successful industrial country if one can only conduct industrial activity when the sun shines and the wind blows. It is not possible. This was understood by the Social Democrats in the 1950s, and therefore they were also involved in building up nuclear power in Sweden. But we cannot continue to be a successful industrial country if one is only supposed to be able to conduct industrial activity or municipal activity when the wind blows and the sun shines. There is no example of this in the world, and it will not work in Sweden either.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Mats Green, for the start of this exciting debate! I truly look forward to the continuation.

Mats Green says in his speech that one chooses not to micro-manage which power we shall have in Sweden, and one trusts those who know it best - the engineers and those who work with power. I agree that we should behave as laypeople. I must admit that I know too little about molecules and such things, so I cannot take a stand on which power one should trust.

But I still have a question for Mats Green. The Moderates are the party that holds the Prime Minister's post and leads the government. As everyone knows, there are now plans for gigantic investments in northern Sweden. People are talking about LKAB's plans for iron sponge for the future. Do Mats Green and the Moderates believe what the expertise says and agrees on, that wind power will be the energy carrier for hydrogen, which will be part of the solution for iron sponge? Do the Moderates and Mats Green believe that the expertise is right here?

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Birger Lahti, for the question!

When it comes to the large-scale energy investments in the north, we must remember that Norrland itself needs all the electricity that is produced. Sometimes it appears as if Norrland exists only to transport electricity to southern Sweden, but that is not the case.

I do, however, get a bit scared when I read the Left Party's budget proposal. The largest individual budget item regarding energy concerns improving the transmission capacity from Norrland to southern Sweden. In that case, one is essentially saying that Norrland should fix southern Sweden's problems with energy and power.

We say that is not the case. In Norrland, one needs all their electricity and power themselves. Southern Sweden has to fix its own problems, and there the answer is nuclear power, just as our brilliant ancestors once established the system.

Vänsterpartiet can therefore remove that item in its upcoming budget motion.

Then there is the hydrogen. It is far from the entire research world that says hydrogen is the salvation for everything. I have a certain skepticism regarding this. It will naturally be part of the solution, but I may be a bit skeptical that it will be able to solve everything.

Then I do not think that politics should step in and decide what is best when it comes to fossil-free steel. The industry can do significantly better than we can. I have nothing against hydrogen at all, but I am perhaps not ready to say that it is what is going to solve everything.

When it comes to wind power in the north, I say again: How has it gone with large wind farms in the north? Yes, it is there that we have seen large bankruptcies. We have also seen large problems with Chinese ownership of infrastructure of societal importance in Sweden. It is also something that we need to address.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the attempt at an answer from Mats Green. I did not hear the answer. Does Mats Green, M, believe that wind power will be the energy carrier for hydrogen? I heard hesitations about hydrogen. That is another matter.

I agree when it comes to the policy. It is not we who are supposed to, so to speak, give these large companies this. They are requesting what many have been looking into. They just need to know that they have reliable and cheap electrical energy. For them, it doesn't matter that it is volatile, because they are already building in Luleå storage for hydrogen.

But the question I asked was: Does Mats Green believe what at least the heavy industries themselves say, namely that cheap wind power can be an energy carrier when it comes to producing hydrogen for their production of sponge iron?

Then it concerns the transmission lines. It is no news to anyone who has worked with these issues that the oldest lines are 80 years old. They need to be renewed. Regardless of in which direction we want to transport electricity, these lines are needed.

To not include the whole picture of how things look in Sweden is nonchalant. I agree that southern Sweden must fix its own electricity production, but then one cannot, as moderately-controlled municipalities do, say no to every single wind farm. When it comes to the municipal veto, they say no. Even if it were at sea, where they are hardly visible, they say no. It is not taking responsibility, as Rickard Nordin says. What is the answer then in the short term? There are no answers, quite simply.

Thank you, Mats Green, for the exchange of remarks!

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! The Left Party's proposal is not just about maintaining the transmission capacity from Norrland to southern Sweden, it is about increasing it, about expanding it. I do not quite see the point, especially not if one says that one wants to stand guard over the major industrial investments in the north.

Then it concerns our position on hydrogen in combination with wind power. The point is that this is a power-source-neutral and technology-neutral energy policy orientation proposition. That is what is best about it. It is up to technology, engineers, and the market to handle this, and that is what the conditions are now being provided for.

Then the experts can discuss hydrogen and wind power and whether it is possible to have wind power in combination with hydrogen in seas that freeze. There is not really any example of that in the world. But it is not really our task to judge that, rather it must be up to the technology, the engineers and the industry.

Then I note that I find it sad that the Left Party, which once started as a party focused on production, has totally and completely given it up. I have great respect for Member Birger Lahti, because I know that he does not agree with that direction. But I can regret that the Left Party does not stand up for Swedish industry and the industries that have made Norrland strong and which continue to make both Norrland and Sweden stronger.

We also would have needed to have you on board when it comes to discussing electricity. Industry needs electricity around the clock, every day of the year. Vänsterpartiet has not come up with anything there either. I can think that it is regrettable. What was once a production party is not that in any part at all now. The biggest losers in this are Sweden's workers.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Finally, it is time to debate and decide on the long-term direction of energy policy. It concerns the so-called energy policy direction bill or, in common parlance, EPIP. It is coordinated between the four Tidö parties, and the Sverigedemokraterna stand behind it in its entirety.

In this report, certain motions from the general motion period have also been addressed, which is why I want to begin by requesting approval for our reservation 14 under point 6 regarding hydropower. In it, we confirm our view on hydropower: that it plays a central role for Sweden's fossil-free electricity supply, both as a source of production and as regulating power.

We therefore agree with the government's assessment in the bill that the existing hydropower's regulation and production capacity needs to be preserved and developed, not least so that the weather-dependent and volatile power sources shall have a chance in a future robust power system. Something that increases this resilience in the Swedish hydropower and thus in the entire power system is an increased storage capacity, which is evident in precisely that reservation that I have moved for approval.

Now I shall move on to the content of the proposition itself.

Madam Speaker! Finally, the government is setting out clear ambitions for energy policy. Next week, the Riksdag will establish a goal for planning and a goal for security of supply. These are two important goals, which, together with many other measures to be initiated or that have already been taken by the government, provide the right signals for investments in production and for industrial consumption of electricity.

The planning objective states that the planning of the Swedish electricity system shall provide the conditions to deliver the electricity needed for increased electrification and to enable the green transition. In this regard, the government currently sees a need to plan in order to be able to meet an electricity demand of at least 300 terawatt-hours by 2045. To this is added that the electricity demand for different geographical areas in Sweden shall be clarified and assessed from the years 2030, 2035, 2040, and 2045.

The security of supply objective, however, states that the Swedish electricity system shall have the ability to deliver electricity where there is demand at the right time and in sufficient quantity to the extent that it is socio-economically efficient. Unjustified barriers in the electricity system shall be removed to create conditions for an efficient market that promotes competitive prices.

Then perhaps someone might wonder: How can one plan for two decades ahead in the year 2024? Yes, it is no simple task, Madam Speaker. That is also why there are checkpoints in this bill so that one can monitor what needs exist in the future. These checkpoints are seen by the Sweden Democrats, among others, as positive.

We know that large parts of the increased electricity demand that both authorities and the private sector assess exists are linked to a few large industrial projects with varying uncertainties and risks.

For example, LKAB assesses that their electricity needs, linked to their transition which requires hydrogen production, land at approximately 70 terawatt-hours at some point between 2045 and 2050. This constitutes, in broad terms, half of the expanded electricity production that the planning goal establishes for 2045. At the same time, it is, at least according to me, difficult to believe that other industrial actors would demand volumes equivalent to LKAB's if LKAB does not carry out its full expansion of this transition.

This is an example of why it is responsible of the government base to have recurring checkpoints, so that we do not get stuck with a planning goal that is under-dimensioned or over-dimensioned.

Madam Speaker! Now I have briefly accounted for the central parts of the bill. But what does this mean in practice? What effects will it result in?

First and foremost, it can be repeated that it is high time that we in politics come forward with clear objectives in the energy policy area. Now, the relevant actors, in the form of everything from authorities to private companies, know which goals exist. Those who want to consume or produce electricity know what politics plans for volumes and what requirements are placed on the system. This means that they understand that we in politics now see that we have a responsibility to take the measures required both to enable large volumes of this production and to have the system expanded so that – and have the functions required for – security of supply can be guaranteed.

The latter, Madam Speaker, has been missing for far too long. Previous governments have admittedly stimulated production, but it has occurred at the expense of the security of supply which is so important. That is why we are net exporters of electricity on an annual basis, while at the same time we sometimes have a power shortage when we need the power the most.

To truly counter this power shortage, I and the Sverigedemokraterna are proud of the submissions we have received in the bill regarding, among other things, the role of gas power, including the submission which states that the government assesses that gas turbines will fulfill a more significant function in the electricity system than they do today until sufficient production of fossil-free electricity from nuclear power is in place. This is a fundamental prerequisite for being able to reach the goal of security of supply.

The following should also be pointed out: If a goal of security of supply had been in place already a few decades ago, not a single nuclear power plant would have been decommissioned. Weather-dependent electricity production would also never have been expanded and become subsidized to the extent that has occurred, at the expense of base load. This has occurred on the false premise that the market has steered towards these investments.

Madam Speaker! Allow me to ask: Which market decided that we were only allowed to have ten nuclear reactors in operation at the same time? Which market decided that we were only allowed to have nuclear reactors in three locations in Sweden? Which market decided that during a limited period of time we were not even allowed to conduct research in the field? Which market decided that it was exactly 100 million that one had to pay just to even apply to engage in nuclear power establishment?

I do not believe it was the market, Madam Speaker. I do not believe either that it was the market that chose to place electricity certificates on other types of power or that it was the market that pushed to subsidize the connection costs for the offshore wind power. I believe on the contrary that all of this, which has caused the situation we see today with power shortages, is a direct consequence of political decisions made, not least in this chamber. It is not something that the market itself has chosen to regulate. As far as I am aware, it is not the case that the market can enact laws, but that is actually what we do here.

Now, politics is taking responsibility, however. Unfortunately, the opposition does not want to participate in taking this responsibility, despite the fact that recurring dialogue meetings have taken place on the other side of the water with representatives for the government. We have discussed these proposals. The government has even complied with the views that have been received, not least those concerning the desire to know earlier what the planning is. That is why we now have control stations. We have been able to have a conversation that we believed to be constructive in order to try to meet and take a joint responsibility for a delivery-secure system.

What has the opposition raised instead? They have wanted more concreteness. They want targets for planning already by 2030, even though the Tidö parties have included checkpoints. With the volumes they wish to add, this naturally would not have been possible without fossil power. In the meetings we have had, I have personally raised that the Sverigedemokraterna can agree to have a target for 2030, but then it will be necessary to have gas turbines which, for a foreseeable future, will be powered by natural gas. This, however, they did not want to have.

We have also heard in these contexts that there is a desire to see a cross-bloc political energy agreement, which the Social Democrats and the Center Party write in their joint follow-up motion. One can then ask, Madam Speaker, what they mean by that. Is it the case that these two parties have developed a newfound interest in the power system? Have they realized that it would be wise to take responsibility for how it is expanded and which functions are incorporated into it?

Have the Social Democrats, after eight years in power, realized that it is now time to take collective responsibility and to include all parties in discussions on issues that will have an impact a hundred years into the future? It is positive if one now has this sense of responsibility after leaving Rosenbad, even though I would have wished that one had had it during the years in government power.

It can also be the case, Madam Speaker, that this is not rooted in a sense of responsibility. It can be that this is a political game where the opposition wants to use all means at their disposal to limit this government's possibilities to implement important reforms. It can be that they want to lock us into talks and negotiations in order to thereby limit our possibilities to push through the reforms that we won the election to implement. It can be that this is just a cynical game and that the best interests of the voters and the industry are far out in the periphery.

Not least for the Social Democrats, it is about winning the next election and thereafter being able to take the measures that we think should be started already now. One is thus ready, if I may interpret this a bit cynically, to play Jeopardy with the voters' and the industry's best interests for own political gains.

We do not, however, allow ourselves to get stuck there. We extended a hand to the opposition, which they chose not to take. Therefore, we proceed with EPIP. We proceed with everything that has already occurred. We have abolished the waste incineration tax. We have targets for nuclear power's production capacity 2035-2045. We have a number of investigations rolling on, not least regarding the management of electricity pricing. We give clearer mandates to the authorities.

The work has begun but is not finished. Now, on behalf of the Tidö parties, we are laying the foundation for a future robust and delivery-secure system.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! If Tobias Andersson thinks that we from Centerpartiet, and for all intents and purposes also the Socialdemokraterna, would engage in some kind of cynical game, it probably says more about the Sverigedemokraterna's view on politics than about our sense of responsibility. This is significantly much more important than that. It is about competitiveness, about Swedish jobs, about the business sector's conditions, about the energy transition and about the climate transition. I know that those things are not so incredibly important for the Sverigedemokraterna, but this is what the business sector is requesting. They want long-term rules of the game.

Some negotiations have not taken place; it was a glorified coffee break and a referral round that we were invited to participate in. If the government were to invite us to negotiations, I believe we could resolve this here in a quarter of an hour. It is not harder than that, but there is simply no will to reach an agreement. This is the big problem – one is not even interested in trying.

We submitted a number of concrete proposals. We received control stations, which do not say anything at all. We received no underlying documents showing what is intended with the delivery security goal or what it will actually cost. We received nothing of what we requested in order to be able to participate in making decisions.

The consequence analyses contained in this report are a joke. The National Audit Office has previously criticized the Riksdag for lack of consequence analyses, but the consequence analyses that are present now are much poorer than the previous ones, which I know Tobias Andersson has criticized.

My big question is exactly the same question that I asked Mats Green. We know that 25,000 jobs in Western Sweden are threatened by 2030. When Tobias Andersson says that it is a few large projects, that is not correct at all in Western Sweden. We have very many projects that require considerably much electricity in relation to the capacity that exists today.

My big question to Tobias Andersson is: How are you going to solve this? It doesn't seem to be interesting to build wind power or solar power. Gas turbines can solve a bit, but it is a very expensive solution for peak power rather than something that is supposed to deliver in bulk. How will the Sverigedemokraterna meet these needs so that jobs are not lost?

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Rickard Nordin for the questions.

I will start with the first question. Do the Sweden Democrats believe that the Centre Party is engaged in a cynical game? The short answer is: Yes, I absolutely believe so. I believe that a party that will likely not manage to get into the European Parliament thinks it is important to engage in symbolic politics, maximize its own space in the debate, and try to bark like a bigger dog than it actually is in the context.

If the Centerpartiet had wanted to have a constructive approach, they would have presented their views already at the first meeting at the department. They came much later, when the handling of the bill was so far advanced that some of the inputs that came from the Centerpartiet were completely impossible to incorporate into the bill without further delaying the handling here in the chamber and then during the implementation.

It is important issues that the member is addressing that we need to act on here and now. It is a pity that so little happened during the eight years that the Center Party had varying influence over the government. But now we find ourselves here, and I absolutely believe that we will build more weather-dependent power. There are also no limitations on this.

If Västsverige lands on the fact that they need this wind power, they just have to put the shovel in the ground. Then, of course, one must get support from the municipality. I do not believe that Rickard Nordin wants to abolish the municipal veto. He is welcome to tell which municipality in Västsverige is supposed to cough up perhaps 30 terawatt-hours by 2030. That is a figure I have received from Västsvenska Handelskammaren. There is no restriction from this government. We have not introduced a ban. On the contrary, we have said yes to building offshore wind power, which the previous government failed to do. Some of the parks are located along the west coast.

What exactly is it that does not exist? There are no restrictions. We have not implemented any restriction for the construction of either wind power or solar power. One may engage in that if one wishes. Which municipality shall house these wind turbines?

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! First and foremost, what Tobias Andersson says is not correct. We were concrete even at the first meeting, and we said that we, for example, wanted a goal for 2030. It is just made up.

If the government had wanted real negotiations, they would have invited us to them. That was not the case. When concrete things on paper were requested, we delivered concrete things on paper, and then they ignored them. It is not our responsibility when the government disregards our input. Centerpartiet cannot be blamed for that.

It is not a question of a cynical game. If there is something we have worked on for a long time and pointed out time and again, it is long-term perspective and cross-bloc agreements. So it was already during the previous parliamentary term.

The fact that Tobias Andersson believes we have had influence for eight years also says quite a lot about Tobias Andersson's view on politics. It was, after all, S and MP who governed, especially 2014-2018. Then it is correct that we were part of the January Agreement for three years, but three is significantly less than eight. I believe, therefore, that Tobias Andersson also needs to practice counting.

This is so incredibly more important than cynical games. It is not the Center Party that runs cynical troll factories and such, it is the Sweden Democrats who do that. The problem, namely, is that Tobias Andersson's own view on politics shines through in the energy debate. This is incredibly much more important than that, and it is even more important outside the chamber. If there had been local incentives, instead of an investigation that lies and gathers dust on the government's table, more would have said yes. If Tobias Andersson had spoken with his own municipal politicians, perhaps more would have said yes.

The Center Party is the party that is best at saying yes to local wind power. The Sweden Democrats are the worst. There are proposals for offshore wind farms on the West Coast on the government's desk that are ready for a decision. Still, no decisions are being made.

Clearer regulations for solar parks are needed because the county administrative boards are requesting them from the government. Still, no decisions are being made. This is the problem; they refuse to make decisions where they are needed and where people want to invest on market terms. I hope that Tobias Andersson's speech about the market in the speaker's chair also applies when it comes to all types of power, that is, that one is not prepared to subsidize anything such.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank again for the comments and questions from Rickard Nordin. I will take back to the department that next time an invitation is sent, it should come in a slightly nicer envelope and with a more formal invitation so that the opposition can also perceive that the intent is serious. Now I believe the invitation was sent by email, and perhaps that was what made Rickard Nordin not perceive that the invitation had the weight that he had desired. We will take this back to, among others, Minister Busch.

Then there was the side track about troll factories. It is still somewhat interesting to pause at this. It was actually your party colleague from Gothenburg, who, by the way, had been elected on Rickard Nordin's own mandate if it hadn't been that he was expelled in 2018, who then formed the party that, together with international forces with Islamists, has conducted a campaign against LVU and Swedish social services. It has probably been the largest influence campaign against the Swedish public ever in Swedish history. It was your party colleague from your party district who would have beaten you on personal votes if it hadn't been that you expelled him. Then he would have sat in the Riksdag 2018-2022 on a Center Party mandate. One should be careful about pointing fingers at other parties when it comes to disinformation when one has that type of history.

With this said, let us talk about the needs that exist in Western Sweden. It is about, in broad terms, 30 terawatts, and that is approximately what all wind power in Sweden produced during 2023. I believe it was 34 terawatt-hours. It was approximately 5,500 wind turbines that produced that power. Where in Western Sweden would you ever get local acceptance to expand as many wind turbines as there are today in all of Sweden and which have been built over decades? There is not a single municipality here in Skaraborg, where I come from, I can promise you, that is willing to even take a few hundred of the 5,500 that are needed.

The short answer to the question that Rickard has asked is well, that I believe that gas will play an important role in meeting the power demand that exists.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! This is a good day to be a Member of Parliament and to be able to move for the approval of one of the mandate period's most important propositions, which I now do from the rostrum.

Can something be both simple and difficult at the same time? Yes, it can, and the energy area is a good example of this. When I became the energy policy spokesperson for Kristdemokraterna nearly six years ago, I actually had to sit down and study concepts that I hadn't used before. It was megawatts, terawatt-hours, energy and power, inertia, frequency regulation, rotational energy - to name a few examples.

Many of you in here, just like me, use those terms in your political work. But honestly; most people are not engineers and do not eat these terms for breakfast. It is not necessary for them to do so either. It is enough that the engineers do it, but then they must also be allowed to do it. We who are in here must focus on creating the right conditions.

We in this chamber shall take care of the simple part of the energy area. Or perhaps it is better to speak of the "uncomplicated" because politicians often have a tendency not to always make it so simple, as we sometimes complicate things.

We are to create the framework and direction for a stable and reliable electricity system. To assist us, we have the laws of physics, and we shall let them stand as a secure foundation. I believe it can be said objectively that we have had the world's best electricity system, but after several years of lacking understanding of how the system hangs together, we ended up a few years ago in a situation that could be likened to Grandma's little crow. You know this little fellow who was out and about but had no one driving, instead he slipped here, he slipped there, and then he slipped down into the ditch. We have had volatile electricity prices that one day have been at several kronor, while on other days there have been negative prices.

Or if we think of Öresundsverket. It was a well-functioning power plant in Malmö that received the final blow from the Social Democrats' fiscal tax grab. It was sold to new foreign owners, but after the effects of the decommissioned reactors began to be noticed and the large-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine was a fact, they managed to reverse the process before the dismantling was a fact.

Madam Speaker! Tell me: How can one attract companies to want to invest billions of kronor in something when the conditions change hippity-hop and one does not know how long a situation will prevail before the poor crow falls into the next ditch?

What is it then that is so good about the bill Long-term Direction of Energy Policy? Well, it establishes a couple of very uncomplicated but fundamental goals that shall serve as a fixed point for the construction of the electricity system: We shall have a planning goal and a security of supply goal. This is not complicated, but it is truly important. The planning goal is needed so that we as a society can begin to act proactively for the expansion of the electricity system. The security of supply goal is needed so that the expansion can take place in such a way that we reach where we want to go, that is, manage the green transition. It does not work to just add production or grid without knowing where we are going.

Madam Speaker! We have for far too long had a policy in our country that has confused means and ends.

Some of you here have surely read the article in Tidningen Näringslivet with the headline "The Minister's Secret Files: How The Greens Deceived the Population about Nuclear Power". The article, in turn, is based on what the investigative journalist Daniel Graeber revealed in the magazine Cicero about how the game behind the German nuclear phase-out went. With ingredients such as forged documents, experts who stepped down at the last minute, and pure lies to the public, The Greens in Germany succeeded in reaching their goal of phasing out nuclear power. It is a frightening read. That this was to the detriment of both climate and economy was completely subordinate to the ideological conviction that nuclear power should be removed at any cost. To reach this goal, it seemed they protected no means.

For us Christian Democrats, nuclear power is not an end in itself, but it is a means to achieve the goal of a robust, secure, and affordable electricity system which in turn can be an engine for Sweden's sustainable development where climate, jobs, and welfare can go hand in hand.

What we can see in our country, which thankfully had not managed to go as far as Germany before sobriety occurred, is that the greatly increased production of weather-dependent electricity production in the form of expanded wind power has not given us more power. Installed production capacity in nuclear power has decreased significantly over the last ten years, hydropower is largely unchanged, and wind power has become approximately four times larger. But wind power does not provide enough power for the industry to be able to connect. This is because wind power does not have a sufficiently high capacity factor. The land-based has only 11 percent, while the offshore provides a little more, 18 percent on average. But that is not enough.

The cost of operating an electricity system with an excessively high proportion of weather-dependent production is rising, and balancing costs are increasing. In 2021, the cost was 1 billion kronor. Last year it was 6 billion kronor, and this year's bill is estimated to be 8 billion kronor. These are costs that are distributed across the entire customer collective and constitute a part of the electricity trading cost. It is like a rot spreading through the electricity system, and as an individual consumer, one can do nothing other than keep one's mouth shut and one's wallet open. We cannot let it continue like this.

We must have an electricity system where we set ideology aside, sort goals and means into the correct baskets, and realize that the electricity system's fundamental architecture has a function in our society that is at least as important as the pension system and the mortgage market - probably more important. We should be able to release party-political locks and agree on fundamental building blocks such as production goals and security of supply goals.

I am genuinely disappointed, primarily with the Social Democrats but also with the Centre Party, because they do not understand that with their rejection of the bill, they are prepared to push Sweden back into a limbo where the electricity market actors will continue to float in uncertainty about what we want. What needs to be built? Where should it be built? What should the economic incentives look like?

Today's bill is not alone a sufficient solution to all the challenges in electricity production, but it is necessary. If we allow ourselves to fail in laying this foundation, we cannot build further, and lost time is lost time. We do not have that time. The business sector, the climate, and the Swedish people also do not have time to wait for decisions.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Camilla Brodin for the presentation.

Before I ask my questions, I shall clarify a few things. The historical description is totally incorrect and is not based on facts. If we look at the statistics for imports and exports, we see that when the Alliance ruled and the Christian Democrats were in government, Sweden was import-dependent on, among other things, German and Polish coal power. At that time, we had a net import on an annual basis. But after seven years of green politics, Sweden had Europe's largest electricity surplus and the largest export ever. The power balance is still good. According to Svenska kraftnät, Sweden has the most secure electricity system in the world, and we also rank first in the World Energy Council's ranking of the world's electricity systems. What Camilla Brodin asserts is, therefore, a false description.

The weather-dependent variable power will be expanded further because it is cheapest, most efficient, and fastest to build. However, I see no concrete proposal here on how this is to be managed. The security of supply goal is just fluff, and there is no impact analysis of what happens when this is to be implemented. The nuclear power you want to build is likely 15 years away. The problems Camilla Brodin raises are real, but the only thing she devotes herself to is an incorrect description of history.

How are you going to solve the power issue?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Much is said from the rostrum, and I believe our citizens can choose whom they should believe.

I am completely certain that we are heading in the right direction. I am not saying that Sweden has the world's worst electricity system. We should be proud of what we have achieved previously, but we must look at the reports on the power balance, which is only shrinking even though Sweden has a larger electricity system today with many more terawatt-hours. The politics have focused too much on terawatt-hours, and now we must talk power. The power that has been removed from southern Sweden makes electricity price area 4 the most vulnerable in all of Europe. We politicians have the responsibility for this, and weather-dependent power is not the solution.

The wind power industry has invested billions in its production, and they are proud of that. The latest I heard was that they are investing 80 billion kronor. But what will be the output? How much industry will be able to plug in? Why does one let the industry live in a bubble?

I want an answer from Miljöpartiet on how the capacity problem is to be solved if one only focuses on terawatt-hours.

(Applause)

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much for the question, Camilla Brodin! I heard no answer to my question, but I am happy to discuss efficiency. We have submitted a proposal regarding a goal for just efficiency, which you have moved to reject, and I will tell more about our proposal in my main speech.

According to major institutions such as the Swedish Energy Agency, Vattenfall and Svenska kraftnät, ten gigawatts of dispatchable green baseload power can balance a great deal of weather-dependent power. We have presented a solution, but you have no solution for how we are to get enough energy or how we are to balance the power.

Sweden has an Energy Minister who is proud to be able to distinguish between a kilowatt and a kilowatt-hour, but she obviously cannot distinguish between power and capacity in the power grid. What hinders most industrial establishments is not the power issue, but the capacity in the power grid. We shall debate this further later on, so we shall not dwell on it now. But it is still important to understand the difference if we are to try to clarify different technical terms.

I visited the chemical industry in Stenungsund last week, and its problem is the capacity in the power grid, not that there is not enough energy and power in Sweden as a whole. Locally, it is, of course, about power, and there we have presented solutions.

I also want to ask why there is no clear goal for 2030. Major referral bodies such as Svenskt Näringsliv, authorities, industry, and even Naturskyddsföreningen – a wide range of stakeholders – have requested a clear planning goal for 2030.

We recorded it already at the first meeting. I also recorded a goal for effect, otherwise, which was not taken into account at all. What is the problem with such a goal? I do not understand that. The member may be welcome to answer that.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

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

I hope that one can clearly hear the direction of a planning goal, a security of supply goal, in order to point out the direction in which Sweden should go. We must look at motioning the entire electricity system. We must take responsibility for putting aside the ideological blinkers that cause the political game to expose Sweden to great challenges, especially in southern Sweden.

I am pleased that the member has also visited the chemical industry. I have also done so. I have also spoken with everyone from business organizations to companies that do not say at all that we must have a production goal by 2030.

We listened, and we had conversations. I appreciated that. I also appreciate that Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet were concrete in their submissions to the conversations we held.

Here we see that we have somewhat different starting points. We probably see Sweden through different eyes, but we are still somewhere in agreement that we want the best for the electricity system. We just have somewhat different ways of getting there.

We are completely convinced that we should have a control station, but do not think that one should have to go to the Riksdag every time to reassess the goals. We must have long-term goals: Where are we headed?

My question that I could ask the Green Party is: Will you actively oppose this bill? We know that it will probably be decided in the Riksdag because a majority points in exactly that direction. Linus Lakso does not have the opportunity to answer this right now, but it perhaps can be taken up in the report in that case.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! The energy system lays the foundation for the modern society as we know it. It is central to jobs, welfare, and prosperity, which has also been said here earlier in the debate.

Now Sweden has begun a shift, a new step in electrification, where transport, industrial processes and other activities are switching away from fossil fuels, directly or indirectly, to electricity. In Sweden, the electricity system has in practice been completely fossil-free for decades, but we still have large emissions in other parts of society. A successful electrification is therefore crucial both to reach Swedish climate goals and to give the Swedish business sector a significant boost in competitiveness and opportunities for new jobs.

In Sweden, it is not just about transitioning what we already have; it is also about new industrialization. Our electricity system and the good conditions that exist here, with an innovative climate and many skilled employees, are attracting new investments. But if we are to fully carry out the transition and the new industrialization, much more electricity, a stronger power grid, and many other parts are needed, not least competence to do all these jobs. And it is needed quickly.

Madam Speaker! The energy area is not only important – it is also special, because the investments are very large and the time perspectives are quite long. The business community and the energy industry therefore repeat time and again how important it is with long-term stable conditions. It should therefore have been a self-evident starting point for the government to ensure broad support for the direction it presents to the Riksdag. That is, however, not the case.

It is a failure that fundamentally highlights a rather large weakness, namely the belief that one can, with a few extra mandates in the Riksdag during a parliamentary term, be able to build something very solid and long-term. It is not correct, and it is dangerous for Sweden to believe it. The lack of long-term perspective and stable conditions risks, on the contrary, delaying the investments that the government wants to see and furthermore driving them away to other countries.

The energy policy orientation bill is also a disappointment in terms of content. It lacks, as we have already said here, clear commitments for the next five to ten years. Without achieving a significant increase in electricity production during this and the next mandate period, Sweden will miss the opportunities to maintain the lead in the transition, miss investments, and lose jobs.

There is also a lack of a clear description in the bill of what the goal for security of supply actually means. Security of supply is important, but it can be achieved in more than one way. Without knowing anything more about the view on indicators or costs, it is simply not possible for us today to stand behind the proposals.

The government also chooses now to let the important issue of energy efficiency hang in the air. We have had many forecasts pointing to very large electricity consumption in Sweden, but thanks to efficiency, we remain at approximately the same level all the time. It may very well be that the goal for energy efficiency needs to be changed, but that not making a decision about it at the same time in a complete package of goals, we think is unwise.

The Energy Authority 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 it is also a fast way to create space for new use - for new industries, quite simply.

Here, however, the government lacks ambition, or perhaps one thinks that the uncertainty is so great after Ebba Busch has negotiated a new EU directive that one does not know how to handle the issue.

These three questions – production, security of supply, and efficiency – are of course closely linked. When there is no goal for increased production by 2030, when the security of supply goal is not described more specifically, and when the energy efficiency goal hangs completely in the air, there is also no coherent goal structure. The Government should therefore return to the Riksdag with exactly that and strive for a broad consensus also on how to get there.

Madam Speaker! Our request is clear: Set high goals for more production by 2030. If you do not like our proposals, come up with your own. Specify the indicators for security of supply, calculate the socio-economic effects of the goal as well as variants of designs. It is quite natural when one is to choose a path in politics.

An energy efficiency goal must, of course, be linked to the production goal. If use can be made more efficient, the production need will decrease, and conversely: if we fail to become more efficient or become more wasteful, more production will be needed. Therefore, come back with a unified package of goals that are linked – that is our message.

We reject the two goals that the government wants the Riksdag to take a position on today with the arguments I have presented. We want to urge the government to return to the Riksdag with the direction that we have described.

In the proposal, however, there are also a number of descriptions of power types. I therefore want to include some important requests to the government.

Nuclear power is an important part of the Swedish energy mix. Life-extension and power uprating of today's reactors are important measures that should be prioritized. New nuclear power - which we in no way exclude if it can be cost-effective - needs to be seen from a hundred-year perspective and thus also has a huge need for a deep and broad anchoring.

Get the wind power moving. The direction that the Tidö parties pushed for in opposition and took with them into government position has affected the granting of permits significantly and negatively. That makes Sweden lose momentum.

The proposals for incentives that have already been investigated and referred, and a reformed process for municipal decision-making so that it arrives earlier and actually applies, would make a big difference.

On the government's own table also lie, as we have already heard, several offshore wind farms in southern and western Sweden for which decisions can be made and permits granted. The same applies to a great deal of solar power, which is with our county administrative boards.

We must also seize the potential of efficiency. Do the obvious first! Provide substantial support to multi-family dwellings that can perform energy renovations, and direct the entire rotavdrag (deductible) toward just energy efficiency.

We also believe that new steering measures, for example white certificates, should be fully investigated. The investigation was almost finished with a market-based system when the government scrapped it.

And get hydrogen moving, even if Mats Green is skeptical. A fossil-free industry needs electricity and hydrogen. They say so themselves. The government is obviously lagging behind compared to other countries. Country after country is acquiring strategies, taking initiatives, and working on it.

Speaking of gas, one still wonders if it wouldn't be appropriate now to ensure that Swedish biogas is taxed more reasonably, that is to say, not as the fossil-free gas. It is moving too slowly here.

The government and the Sweden Democrats have repeatedly chosen to postpone important measures until the future. In climate policy, they are actually missing everything, and in energy policy, they are now risking households' purchasing power, the industry's competitiveness, and a fantastic opportunity for new industrialization.

What is to happen in a distant future is made into a main issue, while one tries to hold back what can be done here and now. It is possible that a positive development in Sweden can be hindered with the basis that the government rests on, but if one really wants to build forward, I think one should listen to us and otherwise also to the business sector, in order to find the broad solutions and agreements that are needed to get the investments that Sweden really needs. But that requires more and something slightly different than what the government has presented until now.

I naturally stand behind all of the Social Democrats' reservations, which are quite many in this matter, but I choose to move for approval only to reservation number 5 and number 8.

(Applause)

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! I am somewhat surprised that those who, during their eight years in government, acted like some kind of mad butchers regarding the Swedish power system, now have plenty of opinions that we are not fast enough. At the same time, it is said that we are far too fast and are forcing things through. That perhaps says something about the energy policy discussions and how the representatives for Socialdemokraterna and Centern behaved then. They were each other's opposites.

Sitting and discussing with the Social Democrats was like reasoning with a blank sheet. They gave no answers at all, because everything was about not giving any statement that would mean they would have to stand for something in relation to their coalition partners if they were to ever regain power in the future, while the Center Party members were more vocal and assertive. When one asked what they actually wanted and what proposals they had, it was only references to look at their website.

My questions are perhaps actually a bit too fundamental to be asked, Madam Speaker, but since we are not getting answers to quite fundamental questions, I need to ask them.

If the Social Democrats and others had been serious about a 2030 goal, they would have set an output target and shown what the overall requirements and the size for different types of power would be to achieve this. But, again, they do not want to discuss the output for every bit of butter in Småland.

The Social Democrats emphasize energy storage. They usually claim that it is not an idea to invest in nuclear power because it is not ready tomorrow. No, that is true, but the Social Democrats' entire thinking on energy storage is based on a technology and a capacity that does not exist. I would like to hear Fredrik Olovsson mention a few words about this.

The Social Democrats also emphasize flexibility, meaning that the industry should only produce when the wind blows and the sun shines. How can one build a successful industrial country in that way?

I would like to have answers to these questions.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Mad butchers who refer to their website - none of that is true. It is so vulgar and bad that one becomes completely exhausted - in such an important issue as energy policy! The whole society out here wants us to reach an agreement, and then Mats Green thinks we should have such a tone in the debate.

If it is on this that one is to invest in Sweden, it is perhaps not so strange that one lands on the conclusion that the industry is basically gone, as Reinfeldt said before we were given the opportunity to begin the journey that involves more energy production, more investments and new industrialization in Sweden. It is very good if Mats Green has changed his mind and thinks that this is important. Then it is very good.

It is undeniably difficult to know where to begin. I did not mention much about energy storage in my speech, but it is clear that it can involve hydrogen. Hydrogen is needed in the industrial processes that many companies require, if it is going to require as much electricity as we are discussing. This means that a large part of the upcoming needs that exist will be flexible from the start.

Vattenfall and the other actors in Hybrit have already tested and demonstrated that they can successfully ensure that costs are lower. A press release has been sent regarding exactly this, where Mats Green can read more.

There are, after all, several years left in this mandate period, so the question is actually not for me but for Mats Gren: What do you intend to do to ensure that all the investments are realized in Sweden? You obviously do not intend to listen to us. You have not read our submissions, and you have not heard our proposals. What does Mats Gren intend to do? What is the message to the world outside, which will choose a country to invest in?

(Applause)

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! The problem is that they don't have any proposals of their own at all. It is completely empty, and they always agree with the person they last spoke with. It is not serious.

One tells some people that one is absolutely not against nuclear power, but then one is still supposed to keep the door open for the environmental activists to come and shut everything down if a regime change were to occur. It is not serious.

That is why we have had a rough start with all of this. You do not want to be on board, Fredrik Olovsson, and you do not come up with a single own proposal other than a bingo of platitudes - not a single one, except for energy efficiency, which in the Social Democrats' Sweden actually means forcing companies to save from a political standpoint. It is planned economy. Good luck running industrial activities in that way!

When weather-dependent types of energy produce masses during the summer half-year, one should not have a holiday, but rather one should work. The Social Democratic answer to Sweden's energy challenge is energy efficiency and only weather-dependent types of power. One cannot continue to be a prominent energy country with that starting point, Madam Speaker.

Again: They refuse to mention the word capacity at all. It doesn't matter if we have a huge electricity surplus on an annual basis if we don't get electricity around the clock every day of the year, but they refuse to discuss capacity. If one had in any way been serious about a 2030 goal, one would have discussed a capacity goal for 2030, but if one had set a capacity goal for 2030, their own energy policy would have collapsed completely.

If one wants to discuss a target for 2030, we are happy to have such a discussion – a real discussion – but not if one comes and discusses without having a single thought about what one wants themselves, in order to keep all doors open to let Miljöpartiet run wild in the Swedish power system, if they were to ever win government power again. This is not serious, Madam Speaker.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! It is possible that Ebba Busch did not show our recordings to Mats Green; one could almost believe it. On the other hand, Mats Green also does not seem to read what we write or listen to what we say, so I do not know if it would have made such a big difference.

We want a goal for 2030. That is perfectly correct. If this is what we agree on. The industry is about to invest in Sweden and wants to ensure that we get more companies here that can save jobs that might otherwise disappear, but above all, create new jobs all over the country. Now it is Mats Green's party that is in a governing position, and his answer to them is a harsh scolding to everyone who says that this is the way forward.

We are ready to do more to produce more wind and solar power. This is what will need to be done during the coming years. No other alternative really exists.

To make this possible in an electricity system, we will naturally also need to make other efforts. It concerns the power grid, which is congested in many places, and it will be necessary to do more with turbines that can run on both biogas and hydrogen. These are, moreover, produced in Sweden. We can also do much more when it comes to efficiency – some of the companies that are best in the world at ensuring that one can energy-efficientize processes, not least in industry, are Swedish.

We are, therefore, well-positioned to be the big winners in this, but Mats Green does not want to see that. He certainly hopes that he will be wrong and that these investments can eventually land in Sweden, even though he actually believes it is impossible and does not intend to do anything to make it possible.

(Applause)

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Much wisdom was spoken by Mats Green in the previous exchange of remarks, but I intended to quote a part of the motion that the Social Democrats, with Fredrik Olovsson at the helm and together with the Center Party, raised in connection with the bill that forms the basis for the committee report we are debating today. There, it was written as follows, Madam Speaker: "We have repeatedly highlighted the need for a goal for more fossil-free power already by 2030."

It is precisely the word fossil-free that makes me react. How have the Social Democrats and the Centre Party, according to their description of reality, repeatedly highlighted a need for just fossil-free power?

I remember my first four years in the Riksdag, that is 2018-2022, when before every negotiation in the Council we had a debate in the EU Committee on whether the Swedish position should also include nuclear power. The question was therefore whether the current government's position on renewable power would be expanded to also include nuclear power and that one would therefore speak about fossil-free power instead of renewable.

Since then, the Social Democrats and the Centre Party have begun a journey towards accepting nuclear power. One could imagine more than ten reactors in operation, but on the other hand, not more than three sites. I think it would have been significantly more honest, Madam Speaker, if one had written that one repeatedly raised the need for renewable power. It would of course never have worked, as Mats Green just explained, but it is not in accordance with the truth that the Social Democrats – or for that matter the Centre Party, which shares this follow-up motion – over a longer period of time have pushed for fossil-free power.

In that case, one would have stood behind this bill. Then one would have stood behind us when we changed the objective to be about fossil-free power. Then one would have stood behind and expressed support for many of the investigations on nuclear power investments that this government has commissioned. That is: Why this choice of words?

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! It has been very important for the Sweden Democrats, the Moderates and other parties to talk more about fossil-free than about renewable.

Since we agreed in the energy agreement, which was nearly ten years ago, we have not seen this as a major issue. In the European cooperation, there has been a very strong focus on renewables, and that is still the case. One can read that in Dagens industri, I believe that is where the commissioner describes how renewables are the way forward.

For us in Sweden, however, nuclear power is an important part of the energy mix. We see that it would be good if we could continue to increase the power of the reactors we have in Sweden and also ensure that they are life-extended. During the period when they would otherwise risk falling out of use, Sweden will likely and hopefully have an increased demand for electricity.

Then we believe that in the shorter term it will primarily be the renewables that are possible, that is to say that wind and solar will account for the large part of the new electricity that can be produced both in Sweden and in other parts of the world. It is precisely that development we are now seeing.

The question to you, Tobias Andersson, becomes the opposite. You have actually used the entire election campaign to condemn wind power. You have seen to it to talk about the terrible consequences it has if one builds wind power. You have not yet seen to it that the completed investigation on incentives for the municipalities has been finalized. It is still large wind farms that are on the government's table and which it can make decisions on if you give your permission.

The question, therefore, comes back: Are you prepared to do more even for the renewables? We are prepared to talk about fossil-free and nuclear power, but what are the Sweden Democrats actually prepared to do?

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I will begin by answering the question from Fredrik Olovsson. There is no stop or any limitation; the government has not taken any measures that make it impossible to build wind power in Sweden. That can absolutely be done. On the other hand, we did not think that the electricity grid collective should finance the connection of the offshore wind farms.

It was a somewhat strange position from the Social Democrats during the current government: They thought that we should, on the one hand, finance the connection but, on the other hand, not say yes to any of the parks. It is difficult to say that one has done more for offshore wind power than this government base has. They promised, admittedly, subsidization of the connection, but they approved no park. It was therefore not possible to get any subsidization because it was never possible to get the government's approval. Now, several parks have received the government's approval, but they have to bear the cost of their own connection. That is reasonable because the electricity grid collective is not to be burdened with this.

Regarding a smear campaign against wind power, I think their balance sheets manage quite well on their own; no Sweden Democrats were needed for that. It is enough to read researchers who, for example in Affärsvärlden, describe how things are going in this area and how foreign stakeholders have sucked out the support systems that the Socialdemokraterna put in place and then left dying wind farms in Swedish forests.

What I problematized, however, was the fact that the Social Democrats in their follow-up motion write that the need for a goal for more fossil-free power has been repeatedly raised. That is simply not true, Madam Speaker. That has not been done.

As has been said, an acceptance of nuclear power has begun, but if it were the case that what was written was true – that one repeatedly raised the need for nuclear power in connection with talking about fossil-free power – why then do the Social Democrats not want nuclear power in more than three locations in Sweden? If one had repeatedly pushed for more fossil-free power, it would have been reasonable to imagine that it could be established at, for example, Barsebäck, which Göran Persson closed according to his memoirs.

Why this opposition to nuclear power if you yourselves claim to repeatedly advocate for fossil-free power, Fredrik Olovsson?

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I have repeatedly highlighted the need for fossil-free power. I know that I have done so, and one can read it in my speeches, articles, and motions. I have done it repeatedly before the talks we had, during the talks we had, and in the recordings we have made of the talks we had. It is therefore nothing strange in any way, and it is of course the line that my party also holds.

Many of the energy policy decisions that have been made by the government ahead of this bill have been completely unilateral. No discussion whatsoever has been held with us. It is, of course, a major flaw in actually all the decisions that have been made - regarding the offshore wind, regarding the connection fees there, and regarding nuclear power. This is just another example.

Now, there were conversations, but there was never any real discussion or dialogue. No negotiation has taken place, and negotiation needs to occur. Tobias Andersson now knows how it works when one is to reach an agreement in the Government Offices. It does not happen by itself; instead, one has to give and take. Here we have had many proposals, but we are expected to take everything. We are to take everything the Tidö parties come up with. We naturally do not do that because we have a somewhat different opinion.

Then it is still like this: Despite that I asked what Tobias Andersson might think can be done to ensure that wind power happens during the coming years, it is only slander that comes out of his mouth. There is nothing else. Permits are actually required. It is just a matter of building, says Tobias Andersson. Yes, there are very many who want to build, but they do not get permits. Consequently, it does not become permitted, and therefore it is forbidden.

Tobias Andersson must therefore do something if he wants there to be more wind power, and the question is what that is. But we can come back to that another time.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! I have heard a lot of words in here today, but I have honestly not heard anything that captured my interest particularly much.

Now the Social Democrats have had a chance to vent some frustration and express some dissatisfaction. I actually know what it is like to sit in opposition, and it is not always very fun. But I am here because I believe that Sweden benefits from wise and sensible decisions. The bill is sensible, but I understand that it can be a bit difficult to admit that if one focuses too much on being against what the government puts forward.

I would therefore like to ask Member Olovsson if the Social Democrats are nevertheless prepared to express support for the fact that we need a production target and a security of supply target. What is it that is so unclear about keeping track of megawatts in the same way as we keep track of megawatt-hours?

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Camilla Brodin certainly has a point in that we would like to discuss the long-term direction of the energy policy and also would like to agree on all possible forms of goals that are linked to it.

When we read this product, we do not feel that this is what the direction should be. We also have quite a few question marks that one perhaps does not have in a government position when one has all the underlying documents. You may know more than what we have seen in the impact assessments regarding how a security of supply goal manifests itself. Several of the referral bodies also have the same fears that it will become very expensive. Achieving a low system cost is, of course, incredibly important if Swedish households are to receive a cheap delivery, but also so that the investments that will now take place in a global competition will actually be realized in Sweden.

With today's position, we say no to these goals. We are also clear that we think the discussion on goals should be revisited, and then we are happy to be involved in it for real. Now I imagine that it will not be so, and then in the future we will be just as careful in expressing our opinion on how we think the other parts should be developed.

I had a small message to include in my speech: Make sure to have a broad acceptance for the decisions that are made regarding nuclear power! Get the wind power moving and do the things that I took up in my speech - it is about the hydrogen, getting the taxation of biogas in order and so on. There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed.

There we will probably have to put more effort in ahead. But I believe it would be of great benefit if the government decided that, yes, we can revise this quite quickly together with the Social Democrats and other parties to find a solution that the business community also feels secure in. They do not feel secure today.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! I have been able to hear the member's various proposals, and I also heard in a previous exchange of remarks that one has 60 terawatt-hours by 2030. I have not heard that the baseload, which is nonetheless stable and secure in its delivery, is included in these 60 terawatt-hours.

If we look at what is in the plan and what is planned in terms of installed capacity moving forward, the installed capacity appears to be able to increase by approximately 24,000 megawatts until 2030, while the installed capacity's contribution to the power balance is just over 1,100 megawatts. Is it well-invested money to create a robust electricity system that is to be secure of supply? No, in this way, I believe that one locks the entire industry into some kind of artificial bubble.

I return to the question regarding the Social Democrats, given that one sticks to one's reservation from the committee, yet will still be able to discreetly join the new legislation. Or will one work actively to tear up the law and replace it with – yes, what?

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! The great advantage, or possibly the disadvantage if one is Camilla Brodin, is that we have elections every four years in Sweden. One elects a new Riksdag, and that Riksdag naturally has all the possibilities to do something other than what the government and the Sverigedemokraterna have presented and voted for here today. So it works. That is the whole idea of why one wants broad, long-term agreements; it is because one wants to remove precisely that political risk.

It is of course so that if we get the opportunity to form a government after the next election, we may very well have other proposals than those that this Riksdag is voting on. I hope that it will be so that we will get to do other things. But I also know that our attitude in this issue, just as it has been for several decades, will be to try to create broad agreements. It has been difficult, but sometimes Camilla Brodin's party and mine have succeeded with it. Perhaps we can do that too in the future.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to the Member for the speech - I think it is pleasing that the Social Democrats are now presenting good proposals, not least regarding nuclear power. One can ask the question why none of these were presented or implemented when the Social Democrats themselves were in government.

What I wonder about is precisely the power. The member returns several times to renewables as the solution in the somewhat shorter time perspective. I therefore have a question regarding electricity price area 4, i.e., the southern parts of the country and perhaps specifically Skåne. If we were to play with the idea that we continue to feed in more solar and wind, how does the member imagine that it should be balanced by power supply? Where should it come from?

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! It is naturally of very great importance that we get more production in southern Sweden, not least in the offshore wind farms that are on the government's desk. It would be incredibly valuable. There are a couple of them that have come so far in the process that only the government's permit remains.

It is also not the case that it only blows in the summer, something one sometimes hears, for example from other members here today. In practice, it is exactly the opposite. It blows much more in the winter, and in Sweden we also have very good wind conditions, which gives a competitive advantage compared to many others.

I also believe that, not least in southern Sweden, more electricity will be needed in a better expanded grid. This has been done too little of for decades. I am happy to take responsibility for that, and my party must also do so. I also believe that we will need more of what Swedish companies are good at. It is about power electronics and about us needing gas turbines that can run on both biogas and hydrogen. There are, therefore, opportunities to do things if one wants to.

Now, it is my responsibility to highlight what should be done, but it is also Louise Eklund's responsibility to ensure that this gets done. It is she who sits here with a majority and as part of the government, quite simply.

The question returns: If we are to manage to produce all the energy and electricity that we need for these industries and we have the tools we have, namely mainly solar and wind, how does the government imagine we are going to succeed? What does Louise Eklund see as a solution to that problem? Or are we simply going to pretend that the industry will be "basically gone" going forward?

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer! I share the view that more of both solar and wind is needed, especially in the southern parts of the country.

I am also looking very much at the power commission in Skåne that has been mentioned earlier and which I helped set up together with the Moderaternas Anna Jähnke. When it comes to Skåne's power, which has been primarily looked at, one is very clear about the need to be able to have approximately 50 percent in self-sufficiency during peak load hours, and a number of different proposals have been submitted. In the half-share that 2030 may constitute, it concerns, among other things, the gas turbines, combined heat and power plants, and so on.

I believe that is a feasible path. But I wonder how the member and the Social Democrats reason regarding this. In the party program, it is very clear that you want all types of fossil-based energy to be phased out and that Sweden should become the world's first fossil-free welfare nation. Therefore, I think that if one now wants to start looking at renewable energy and matching it against, for example, gas turbines, one also needs to make concessions on these ambitions.

My question to the member is therefore: How has this been envisioned? Is it a way forward for the Social Democrats?

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! The ambition from our side is to get rid of the fossil. To become completely fossil-free is the whole point of meeting the collective commitment we have in the world. Therefore, it is so good that, for example, Swedish companies can now deliver gas turbines – admittedly to other countries – that can run on both biogas and hydrogen. These are purchased by other countries for their power systems. It would be very good if we also did that to a greater extent.

I also believe that much more production is needed, but in the short term, efficiency is also an important issue. That is why it is unfortunate that there is no goal for it in the bill. It is also unfortunate that the government does not have enough measures in the area that could yield results. It would lower costs for both companies and households while simultaneously creating very many jobs in the Swedish companies that are world leaders in energy efficiency. We truly have a win-win situation here, if one may use English expressions in the chamber.

There are obviously several things that Louise Eklund and I agree on and that we could certainly work further on moving forward. The projects that have been mentioned here - in Western Sweden, in southern Sweden and in northern Sweden - have involved more cooperation and discussion and that people are trying to find common solutions. It is precisely this that energy policy needs more of in order for us to achieve results.

We have a great task ahead of us, but we also have good opportunities to be winners in the transition.

(cont. § 5)

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