Changed tax subsidies for solar cells and micro-production of electricity

Kalle Olsson (S)

Madam Speaker! This report concerns the government's proposal to abolish the tax reduction for micro-production of renewable electricity and to lower the subsidy level for the installation of solar cells within the framework of the tax reduction for green technology. From the mid-year turn, it will simply become more expensive for a private individual to invest in solar cell technology.

One can be reminded that it is not all that long ago that the subsidy rate for the installation of solar cells was raised by the same government that is now going to lower it, Madam Speaker. The adjustment from 15 to 20 percent took place on 1 January 2023, and now – two and a half years later – the subsidy rate is therefore to be lowered to 15 percent again. One might wonder what it is that has happened.

What has happened is that very many households have chosen to respond to the government's price signal. If we compare before and after the subsidy level was increased in 2023, we see that in the year before the increase, 62,000 households received tax reductions for solar cell installations, and that at the end of 2023, more than twice as many had received the tax reduction. We have seen an acceleration of the expansion of green technology. That is good.

Exactly what drives households to make a certain investment at a given time can be understood to depend on several different factors, such as personal finances, the economic climate, future prospects, and so on. But the differences between the years are so large that it is obvious that the level of subsidy has played a role – perhaps even a significant role.

We Social Democrats think that the higher subsidy rate should have been continued for an additional period, because we believe there are reasons to continue stimulating the capacity expansion of the production of renewable electricity and reducing the dependence on fossil-based electricity production. It is actually the same argument that the government put forward when it raised the subsidy rate last year.

How the upcoming deterioration will affect the willingness to invest in solar cells is difficult to say with precision, as there are several factors that influence it. Two differences between today's situation and 2023 are, on the one hand, that it has become slightly cheaper to install solar cells, and on the other hand, that the market has reached a certain level of saturation. We can, however, be completely certain that the deterioration will not increase the interest in solar cells.

We also think it is problematic when this type of jerkiness arises regarding different subsidy measures, Madam Speaker. It is only two and a half years since the government raised the subsidy rate, and now it is being lowered again. How is a consumer supposed to think in that situation? Should one have patience and hope that the subsidy rate will be raised again, or is this a signal that the government will begin a phase-out and that one, as a solar cell speculator, should hurry?

Out of respect for the cohesive budget process, we Social Democrats have chosen not to reserve ourselves in the matter. Instead, we have justified our position in a separate statement, where the main message is precisely that we believe one should remain at a higher subsidy level. In our budget proposal, we have rejected the government's deteriorations.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! In the bill, the Government proposes that the tax reduction for micro-production of renewable electricity be abolished and that the subsidy rate for the tax reduction for the installation of solar cells be lowered from 20 to 15 percent.

We in Vänsterpartiet consider that the government's proposal is yet another example of how the government's past climate and energy policy hinders or counteracts a necessary green transition. With the measures in the bill, the opportunities for people to contribute to the climate transition in their everyday lives in a simple and economically advantageous way, while simultaneously strengthening their preparedness, are made more difficult.

Madam Speaker! The Government itself notes in the bill that the proposals reduce the economic incentives for households to invest in solar cells. The proposals therefore also clash with the Government's established rhetoric that it wants to expand fossil-free electricity production and that the established climate policy must be popularly anchored.

The government's reasons stated in the report are that solar power should to a greater extent be built on market grounds. I can agree that one should not provide subsidies indefinitely, but – and I cannot help but mention this here – when it comes to nuclear power, the government is apparently prepared to provide subsidies for several decades. It is difficult to see any logic in this.

Madam Speaker! For the business community, the proposals mean that long-term rules of the game are being destroyed, and an effect of this will be bankruptcies and unemployment.

Solar power is a very sustainable source of power that can be expanded quickly, and not least, roof-mounted solar cells are an effective way for private individuals to contribute to the total energy supply.

Madam Speaker! We also agree with the referral bodies' views that the proposals weaken the competitiveness of Swedish farmers and that households and small businesses become more vulnerable in future energy crises.

With that, I move for approval of the only reservation in the report.

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

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would first like to express my approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

Today we are dealing with a bill that proposes that the tax reduction for micro-production of renewable electricity be abolished and that the subsidy level for the installation of solar cells within the framework of tax reductions for green technology be lowered from 20 to 15 percent.

The difference in the subsidy rate for the installation of solar cells is therefore 5 percent. Some present it as if this were a massive change that resulted in God knows what, but that is not the case. Furthermore, I can, as is done in the bill, state that the change involves a return to the subsidy rate that applied before 2023, that is, a time when, among other things, the current left-wing opposition in this chamber had a majority. It was not a catastrophe then, and it will not be a catastrophe in the future either.

Madam Speaker! The sun is shining, and then electricity prices go into the negative. That is actually what is seen more and more often all over Sweden, not least during the summer. When the sun shines most, we produce more electricity than we can use. It should be a success story, but it is in fact a symptom of an electricity system that has become increasingly unstable. To solve the electricity shortage during parts of the year, one cannot invest in measures that increase production at times when we do not need the electricity.

Subsidies should be a tool to support technologies that would otherwise have very difficulty surviving on the market – or even not survive at all – but which are needed. Subsidies are a temporary support and thus nothing that should remain forever.

We have for years poured out tax funds to stimulate weather-dependent electricity production, for example solar power. As said, it does not have to be wrong in all contexts, but reality clearly shows what it can lead to: a significant imbalance in the electricity system, overproduction when the sun shines and shortage when it is dark or cloudy. It is not sustainable either for the climate, for the electricity market or for the taxpayers. I believe everyone in this chamber agrees that sustainability should be something we strive for.

Madam Speaker! Budgetary considerations are an important aspect in this debate. Tax incentives and subsidies cost state funds, and by reducing these, we can free up resources to finance other sustainable energy programs with broader or faster effects. The solar cell industry has matured, and production costs have dropped significantly, which indicates that the industry perhaps no longer needs as generous subsidies to remain competitive.

We should also emphasize the differentiation of energy sources. A reduction of certain subsidies can encourage investments in a diversified set of renewable energy sources rather than a strong focus on a single technology. This can lead to efficient resource use and to the government being able to steer towards more cost-effective or promising energy technologies that provide a greater return per invested tax crown. Reduced economic steering can in turn give citizens and companies greater freedom of choice to themselves determine what is the best investment for their specific energy needs and situation.

Madam Speaker! We need an electricity system that is robust, predictable, and stable. It is time to prioritize investments in nuclear power, combined heat and power, and other predictable production instead of further subsidies for technologies that produce when we do not need electricity and stand still when we do. Returning to previous levels regarding subsidies for solar cells is not saying no to renewables, but it is saying yes to responsibility, to an electricity system that works around the clock, and to tax money being used where it actually does good.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! To understand solar cells and the place of solar cells in the electricity system, I believe we need to consider the question from a few different perspectives. It was an essentially different time when Sweden built up its electricity system in the 70s and 80s, first with hydropower and then with nuclear power. We built a hierarchical system. We built a system with very large installations and transformed the electricity down to voltage levels that were suitable for households. The installations were large, and at the end of the power lines there were not customers but, as it was called then, load points.

It was then. It is this time that Tidögänget longs to go back to. An incredible amount has happened since then. We have a new electricity system emerging. We have new technologies that have made enormous breakthroughs. We have cost reductions for solar cells, for wind power technologies, and for various storage technologies.

We also see that it is not just a matter of being either a producer or a consumer in the electricity system, but we are now also talking about prosumers. We have a completely new opportunity to manage the electricity system. With the possibilities of digitalization and the advent of artificial intelligence, we can have an enormously greater flexibility on the demand side. We can use the batteries in electric cars not only to charge up and drive our miles in our cars but also as energy storage for our households.

We see opportunities with stationary batteries in our villas, terraced houses, and homes. That makes the talk about what we should do when it is not blowing or when the sun is not shining outdated. That problem no longer exists in the academy's various investigations. It does not exist either in the business community's various proposals on how one can solve our challenges.

We can also add pumped storage, as is done in some countries. With large-scale pumped storage, we can pump up hydropower and use it when electricity prices so require. We can have new strategies for combined heat and power produced during the winter half-year, when the demand for electricity is at its greatest. We can have improved electricity price areas. We can also work with peak load production in various biogas turbines.

We have infinitely more opportunities today, Madam Speaker, than when we built our electricity system in the 70s and 80s. Nor have we ever had an electricity system that produces as much electricity as today – despite the fact that we have closed a number of nuclear reactors in Sweden for age-related reasons, we produce more electricity than we have ever done before.

Another perspective, Madam Speaker, is the perspective of the countryside. Living in the countryside has become quite expensive. One may need to take one's car and travel several miles a day to one's workplace or as part of one's work. Why then not see the opportunity that solar cells offer for self-sufficiency and for selling to the power grid and creating a better economy for the countryside's population? Why should we lower the subsidy rate and remove the economic conditions for the countryside? I honestly do not understand how the Tidö Government's parties reason when they want to lower the countryside through such a proposal.

We can also see that we get an increased democratization of the electricity system when smaller technologies emerge and more and more people can participate, for example in the countryside. One can have opinions and participate in debates. We can then get an energy system that actually develops according to the people's will, which is not insignificant in a polarized political landscape.

It is of course impossible to miss mentioning the advantage of renewable types of energy. We take the energy from a common resource – in solar cells, it is the sun that shines thanks to the hydrogen reactions and the fusion in the sun. No one owns the sun; we own it together. The sun's rays cost nothing. Uranium, diesel, and biofuels cost money, but the sun costs no money. The wind also costs no money. That is also clearly a major advantage.

We can also mention what happens when one makes such jerky changes as the government is currently pursuing. There can be bankruptcies in the business sector. Firms have been built up to do solar cell installations but suddenly get a completely different market, can no longer manage the finances, and get fewer customers overnight. This is naturally not good for either the companies or the labor market. This also hits the countryside very hard.

It is impossible to avoid discussing this with a technology-neutral electricity system. I read directly from the report: "The use of solar power should instead be based more extensively on market grounds, and price signals from the electricity market should have a greater impact so that the power output can in the long run contribute more to Sweden's security of supply and security of provision."

I think that sounds good. The problem, Madam Speaker, is that it only sounds good if it is valid for all technologies, so that we truly have technology neutrality.

Try replacing "solar power" with "nuclear power" and see what happens in your bodies and brains! Then it sounds like this: The use of nuclear power should instead be based to a greater extent on market grounds, and price signals from the electricity market should have a greater impact so that the power output can in the long run contribute more to Sweden's security of supply and security of provision. In the C and my world, that sounds really good.

Madam Speaker! I move for the approval of our reservation in the report.

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

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Madam Speaker! Let me first say that it is always pleasing to hear fine words about the countryside and the conditions in the countryside. I think we hear such things a bit too rarely in this chamber. That they come from the Center Party does not surprise me, because one tries to maintain the image of being a rural party even though one is anything but that today. Given that the Center Party is willing to tear down everything that is important for people in the countryside, reality speaks its own clear language.

Anders Ådahl mentioned in his speech that we produce more electricity than ever. That is correct, but it happens at the wrong times of the year. He also mentioned that we do not have the same problems as in the 70s and 80s because we have batteries that can store electricity. But if that were the case, we would not have the problems with skyrocketing electricity prices that we have seen in Sweden during the winter half-year, which have hit ordinary families hard.

How does Anders Ådahl mean that this should be solved? I see no proposals from Centerpartiet to solve these problems. But obviously they exist, so what are the proposals? How is this to be solved?

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Let me first say a few words about the Center Party as a rural party. It is, of course, with immense pride that we can state that we have fought for democracy and justice with soul, heart, and boots on the ground since 1910. All Members of Parliament, municipal politicians, regional politicians, and members of the Center Party know exactly what is important. For us, there is no doubt that we are the voice of the countryside in Swedish politics and that we do not engage in populist rural talk but have real proposals that mean something for all residents in Sweden.

What do you do when the wind does not blow? That is something that interests the Sweden Democrats very much. As I said in my speech, there are many different ways to meet this situation, and I agree with the member that we must meet it. I mentioned, perhaps a bit hastily, that there are completely new ways to work with flexibility on the demand side. One does not need to heat one's hot water accumulator in the villa when it is most expensive in the morning and afternoon. That can be done at night or in the middle of the day. One can improve the conditions for Swedish combined heat and power, which delivers best during the winter half-year and actually best when it is coldest. One can expand hydropower, a technology that I believe everyone in the chamber is very fond of. Here is potential to increase efficiency and production.

It is therefore not the opportunities that are the problem. What it possibly is that is the problem on the government side is imagination.

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

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Madam Speaker! The history of the Centre Party is one thing, but today the Centre Party is a completely different party than it was 50, 60, 70 years ago – for better or for worse, it should be added.

Anders Ådahl mentions again that there are many ways to meet the problems we have when the wind does not blow, the sun does not shine, and so on. I noted one measure: not to live when very little electricity is produced. But it is possible that something more was mentioned.

But where are the proposals? We have had enormous problems with the electricity market in Sweden during certain periods of the year, with very high electricity prices as a result. Given that we all in here want to move towards a more sustainable societal development, this is not viable, especially not when more and more people are getting electric cars and so on.

There are no solutions, because if they had existed, we would already have them.

It is possible that the Center Party is still living in the 70s, but Anders Ådahl is welcome to develop his reasoning.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Well, it is perhaps rather the Sweden Democrats and the governing parties that find themselves in the 70s and 80s. The Centre Party is moving in 2025 and beyond and sees how the technological development has been enormous over the last decades. What I was trying to say was that the truth that prevailed in the 70s and 80s no longer applies. Now the technological possibilities are incredibly much greater.

The Chairman mentions that we have had enormous problems in the Swedish electricity system. But have we had blackouts? Have we had days or hours when the electricity system has not delivered electricity to its customers? No. We have not had enormous problems in the Swedish electricity system. What we have had are enormous electricity price peaks for two or three hours on some occasions. These have to a large extent been dependent on events outside our realm. We have also seen how Putin, during his war of aggression, has chosen the energy weapon by choking off gas to Germany and how that has spilled over onto Swedish electricity prices. When the German electricity shortage becomes large and Sweden is forced to deliver very much electricity to the continent, there are price peaks. But these problems are not due to the fact that we have poor energy or electricity policy.

Madam Speaker! I must give the member's social analysis a failing grade.

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! I was born in the 60s, so we shall see what happens now.

The background to this bill was already announced in the budget bill for 2025. The Government then proposed reduced subsidies for the installation of solar cells and abolished the tax reduction for micro-production of electricity.

Overall, there may be reason to describe a bit what the background looks like and how the market and the system function. We tend, after all, to end up there in almost all of these debates.

We Moderates believe that at certain times and in certain given situations, there may be reasons to use subsidies, for example to support new technology or when market imperfections mean that the market cannot manage to make changes sufficiently quickly on its own. The subsidies should be temporary and designed so that they are not too narrow but benefit society as a whole.

Madam Speaker! With the facts we have, it is difficult to see that solar power today needs extended or additional subsidies or larger deductions, rather the opposite. It means that we no longer need the same level of subsidies on the installation of solar cells. The support that has existed for a number of years has had a good effect, as several of the previous speakers have pointed out, and a substantial volume of new electricity has been produced via solar cells.

The support has, as said, had a good effect, and significant expansion has occurred. But as it stands in the bill, it is judged that no further expansion is needed at the current stage. Perhaps it is not even possible because we need to be sure that balance is achieved in the system. Thus, the support does not need to be as large as it was previously.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the tax reduction on micro-production of electricity, it is currently not desirable to feed more non-dispatchable electricity into the system. As several of you are well aware, this is a rather complicated combination of mathematics and physics, and even though changes and developments in technology and policy occur over time, I believe that the mathematics and physics remain in their original form. It is a matter of finding balance in the electricity system. There must, therefore, be a sufficiently large volume of dispatchable electricity in the system so that we can also utilize non-dispatchable electricity. This means that at the current stage, we should not or cannot add more non-dispatchable electricity to the system, at least not on any large scale.

It is very possible that in the future we will want or need more solar power in combination with expanded hydropower, which is predictable, and expanded nuclear power. This is, as some of the previous speakers have touched upon, an important part in avoiding peaks in electricity pricing.

The solar cells do not contribute any electricity when we have price peaks in the winter. The subsidy is simply not sustainable technically, and the tax deduction should not exist. If one is slightly technical, one knows that we cannot have a deduction when we have negative prices. Ordinary mathematics says that the logic should not exist. Actually, the proposition is exclusively about mathematics and physics, and perhaps this is what makes it quite difficult to understand.

Madam Speaker! The climate transition is an important idea in our government's energy and climate policy. The government is working to reach the goal of fossil-free status. We need to expand the production and distribution of electricity. To manage the increasing demand for clean electricity, which is expected to double in line with the electrification of transport and industry, we Moderates want to invest in more predictable electricity, both nuclear power and hydropower.

Nuclear power is crucial because it is safe, stable, and emission-free and can create an electricity supply that is independent of weather conditions. By having a higher proportion of dispatchable energy, we can also have a higher proportion of non-dispatchable energy.

Madam Speaker! I would therefore like to move for the approval of the committee's proposal regarding SkU17.

In this speech, Magnus Resare and Mats Sander (both M) and Markus Wiechel (SD) agreed.

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats are for sustainable development and reduced dependence on fossil energy. Tax reductions for green technology have undoubtedly been an important part of this endeavor, particularly by stimulating the installation of solar cells, batteries, and charging points for electric vehicles.

We have seen a sharp increase in the number of solar cell installations since the subsidy rate was raised from 15 to 20 percent. At the end of 2024, there were almost 300,000 grid-connected solar cell installations in Sweden. This development signals a continued interest in solar energy in Sweden, even though the growth rate varies. It is a clear sign that the capacity expansion of renewable electricity production has been successful.

Mr. Speaker, success also requires reassessment. The Christian Democrats were involved in introducing the tax reduction for micro-production of renewable electricity together with the other Alliance parties. At the same time, the VAT obligation was abolished for those who sell surplus energy up to 80,000 kronor per year. This provided an incentive to expand solar cell systems more than what covers their own consumption. Now we are abolishing the tax reduction because we have achieved our purpose.

Madam Speaker! We now propose that the subsidy rate for the installation of solar cells be lowered from 20 to 15 percent. Installations that are paid in full before July 1 are covered by the higher subsidy rate. The proposal is estimated to increase tax revenues.

We also propose that the tax reduction for micro-production of renewable electricity be abolished starting in January. Electricity that is fed into the system and taken out shall no longer receive subsidies. Solar power should to a greater extent be built on market-based grounds, and the micro-producers should be given correct price signals from the electricity market to make the right investment choices.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I want to emphasize that the Christian Democrats will continue to safeguard incentives for climate-smart investments, but these must be well-balanced and adapted to prevailing market conditions. We therefore support the committee's proposal and oppose the motions.

In this speech, Markus Wiechel (SD) agreed.

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

Anders Ekegren (L)

Madam Speaker! Today's debate concerns subsidies for solar cells and micro-production of electricity.

The Government proposes in Proposition 2024/25:109 that the subsidy rate shall be lowered from 20 to 15 percent when it comes to solar cells, which is the subsidy rate that applied before 2023, and that the tax reduction for micro-production of renewable electricity shall be abolished.

Solar energy has increased in Sweden in recent years, albeit from very low levels. In terms of actual electricity production, solar power accounts for 1.9–2.4 percent of electricity production in Sweden, and it is highly concentrated in the bright months.

Whether the increased subsidy rate has contributed to this is shrouded in mystery. Among other things, the prices of solar cells have fallen in recent years, which has likely had a greater effect. Solar energy would have had greater significance for the electricity supply if it had been combined with batteries and other energy storage to a greater extent.

Madam Speaker! When one first sees the bill, one might think that it is not a good proposal. Small-scale solar energy is a bit cute and is probably very good for increasing electricity production, but then to the own property. It is very doubtful what effect the subsidies have had.

Madam Speaker! There are both referral bodies that are in favor of the change and referral bodies that are against it. The authorities that have an overall responsibility, including Svenska kraftnät, Energimyndigheten, and Konkurrensverket, as well as Svenskt Näringsliv, consider that the government's proposition is good. These are, nevertheless, heavy-weight bodies.

The Competition Authority wants, for example, that the 15-percent rule should be evaluated continuously to see if it has any effect. According to the Swedish Energy Agency, the expansion of solar cells is limited to a greater extent by the supply of solar cells and the availability of installers than by the level of subsidies.

Changed tax subsidies for solar cells and micro-production of electricity

The expansion of solar cells is good if the energy is used by the producer themselves or if it is stored in batteries to, among other things, secure their own electricity supply, but then during the sunny part of the year, as Fredrik clearly showed here.

Several authorities note that the subsidies provide incentives for feeding electricity into the grid regardless of the price level, which can contribute to more electricity being produced than is socio-economically justified or what benefits the power system's stability. The greater the amount of solar and wind power in the power system and the less predictable power, such as nuclear and hydropower, the worse the stability in the power system. And electricity from micro-production, which actually goes in the wrong direction, does not make it easier.

The opposition has had many views in this debate, but in what has been written in the committee, there are no extensive objections. It is difficult to say that the changes affect the installation of solar cells significantly, according to several government agencies.

Madam Speaker! With this, I move for the approval of the proposal in the Committee on Taxation's report.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 8.)

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