(cont.) Energy policy (cont. NU13)

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! When I read the report, I am struck by how much consensus there actually is in energy issues despite everything. The energy policy conversation has changed for the better from when I entered this chamber in 2018 until today. It has moved from feeling to thought and from words to action.

Now we are debating increasingly subtle details with some exceptions instead. We are in agreement in the chamber that Sweden, not least for our competitiveness, growth and climate transition, needs significantly more fossil-free electricity production.

Companies in Sweden need long-term perspective, security, and clear rules of the game in order to be able to invest. Most are also in agreement that we need the full palette. I mean both wind power, hydropower, solar power, combined heat and power, gas turbines, batteries and nuclear power. Nuclear power was opposed and undermined previously but today has broad support in Sweden's Riksdag.

Madam Speaker! It is good for Sweden that the energy policy debate has, for the most part, left the sandbox. We cannot afford anything else. The deteriorating security situation has been an awakening: What do we want the electricity system to deliver in times of crisis or war?

If we speak seriously about the climate transition, what prerequisites do industry, the transport sector, companies, and households need? Well, they need security of supply, fossil-free energy, and a state that plans based on increasing electricity consumption. That is exactly what the government delivers. During this parliamentary term, the energy policy direction has been shifted, the way has been paved for new nuclear reactors, and nearly 80 concrete measures have been taken to strengthen the power system and the balance of power here and now.

Legislation and regulations are simplified for the electricity market, and financial support is paid out during the spring to increase local acceptance for wind power. The Energy Markets Inspectorate shall also investigate the effects of regulations of grid fees. This is just a selection. In total, over 7,000 megawatts of new installed production capacity has been added during the mandate period, and the power balance has improved by 2,000 megawatts. The energy policy has yielded results. The power balance is strengthened here and now while we plan and build for the future's electricity system.

Madam Speaker! As I mentioned, we still see certain exceptions where the energy policy debate is conducted at a sandbox level. Our weather-dependent electricity system generated less electricity during this cold winter, with little wind and high electricity prices in our neighboring countries. This led to higher electricity prices across all of Sweden. The opposition's energy politicians know very well that the situation we will live with for a long time is a consequence of planned electricity production being phased out and replaced with weather-dependent production.

So far during the mandate period, electricity prices have been halved on average compared to 2022. The total electricity cost has during the same period decreased by an average of 2,000 kronor per year for an apartment and 10,000 kronor per year for a normal villa. When the winter and spring of 2022–2023 offered similar weather conditions as we have seen this winter, the government paid out a high-cost protection of 44 billion kronor to households and companies. This government also has a high-cost protection developed that is ready to be paid out when the average price during a month exceeds 1.50 kronor per kilowatt-hour.

Madam Speaker! This winter has not been easy for Swedish households after years of pandemic, war in the world, and high inflation. In that situation, we cannot afford red-green politicians who choose conflict for conflict's sake instead of taking responsibility for the future of the electricity system. Instead, we need to collectively offer the Swedish people a vision forward. A good start is an electricity system that delivers regardless of the weather.

In conclusion, I want to mention hydropower, which most know is close to the hearts of the Christian Democrats. It has been extremely important to ensure that we protect the hydropower we have and to carry out this implementation of the EU's Water Framework Directive in the best possible way. The proposed legislative amendments make it possible to use exceptions and to base it on the EU's minimum directives and utilize the room for maneuver in the EU's rules to minimize production losses and protect grid capacity.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! It was an interesting speech by Camilla Brodin. To lower the level of conflict and look forward and such was precisely what we tried to do about ten years ago when we concluded a broad energy agreement and set long-term goals. Everyone was in agreement for a few years until the Kristdemokraterna chose, with a great deal of noise and fuss, to break up the agreement and start a culture war within the energy sector. We were already then prepared to negotiate and also renegotiate the existing agreements. We have been prepared to conclude a long-term energy agreement even during this mandate period.

I would like to ask some similar questions. All representatives for the Tidö parties have boasted about these 2,000 megawatts in improved power balance, and if one is so proud, one should be able to explain what this consists of. Camilla Brodin also boasted about 7,000 megawatts of added production during the mandate period. At the same time, she talks down solar and wind and says that we absolutely cannot have more of it, because it destroys the entire electricity system.

I am becoming a bit curious about what these 7,000 megawatts that Camilla Brodin is talking about are, and what it is that has strengthened the power balance by 2,000 megawatts.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Linus Lakso, for the question! I will begin with the energy agreement. I am one of the people who was involved and sat in these talks when we discussed and potentially would renegotiate. As for renegotiating, I do not believe that anyone on your side of politics was prepared to do so at that time. I sat in on those talks. On the other hand, we received a series of seminars during an entire autumn so that everyone had the same starting point to work from. I believe we can agree on that.

There was then a paper on the table that nevertheless made it completely impossible to continue those conversations at all. We look back. What was done to adhere to the agreement that was made in 2016? Did one safeguard the role of district heating and combined heat and power – that which everyone is talking quite heatedly about these days, when one sees that those characteristics were needed? No, then one increased the tax on combined heat and power eightfold. Miljöpartiet was also involved and contributed to that. This caused quite a few combined heat and power plants to be withdrawn because there was no profitability. One was given three months to transition.

Bit by bit, one did not really stick to the agreement that was on the table. That also meant that one was not really there when, at that stage, one should have been ready to renegotiate the issues. One did not listen, but it was only one's own way that mattered. One was not ready to have an open conversation.

I can speak for a very long time about this agreement, and I am prepared to answer the remaining questions in the next speech.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Camilla Brodin for partial answers, for now, and I look forward to receiving answers to my remaining questions.

I will probably say just enough about history, but I was personally involved in providing both offers and counteroffers in a renegotiation of the energy agreement. It is appropriate to point out that the tax placed on combined heat and power applied to fossil fuels in the combined heat and power. If fossil fuels in combined heat and power is something that Camilla Brodin protects and wants to see more of, we have different views.

That also leads me to an interesting follow-up question. I would like to know if Camilla Brodin can answer which type of energy has increased the most during this parliamentary term. I can also add an additional follow-up question, namely which controllable fossil-free power has been added to improve the power balance.

I do, however, look forward to the answers as to what the 2,000 megawatts in improved power balance consist of and what the 7,000 megawatts in increased electricity production consist of – as well as when it was decided that it should be built. I would very much like to know that.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Linus Lakso for the questions regarding the fact that capacity and megawatts have been added to the system.

As we all know, we have a power plant in southern Sweden that constitutes the reserve capacity. We have nevertheless ensured that it is in place and can support the system. We know, in fact, that it is quite vulnerable in southern Sweden because planned production has been taken out of operation prematurely. It is political decisions that have been behind this, which has been discussed here earlier this morning.

We are, at least, some who were present during that vote in the chamber during the previous parliamentary term. At that time, there were parties that nevertheless expressed a goodwill and said: Okay, we might have to keep our nuclear reactors – at least until there is something else in place. But even that was not something one was prepared to take on with a firm grip; it was rejected even before it reached the chamber's table when I proposed a committee initiative.

Had the reactors remained, it would have looked completely different, and then we also could have told our citizens that the price would be 30–50 percent higher if this is phased out. This is also something that has emerged in a report. Had one known that in advance, one could have been a bit clearer towards Sweden's citizens about what one was pressing the voting button for when one pressed no in this chamber to the proposal that Ringhals 1 and 2 should remain. There, one is answerable.

We must ensure that we still have the 7,000 megawatts, but also 2,000 megawatts, which need to be available for the electricity system to actually function. We are not finished yet, but we have much left to do. I look forward to continuing the debate.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is in the midst of a historical electrification. Industry is transitioning, and the transport sector is transitioning – even if in that sector, unlike what the Moderaterna believe, it is not just about electricity but also about biogas. More biogas trucks are sold than electric trucks today.

The entire society is moving away from fossil fuels. It is good for the climate, it is good for jobs, and it is crucial for our competitiveness. But let us also be honest: Sweden will not manage the transition with yesterday's pace and yesterday's technologies. Despite the government saying that electrification is its main focus, far too little is happening. Industry has put its investments on hold. New permits for wind power are conspicuously absent, and electric car sales have stalled.

The lack of own reforms is blamed on the decommissioned nuclear power, but according to Vattenfall, the reactors would have been closed by this point anyway. Regardless of the reason they were decommissioned, they would therefore not have remained today, and yet this is the only thing one has to come with from the government's side.

It is actually the case that we have such a large electricity surplus in Sweden that we only import electricity during 5.7 per mille of the time. What we sometimes have is a challenge of getting out more power, that is, being able to make more withdrawals from the grids, at certain times and in certain places. This is best remedied with flexible power and flexible production – and with an energy efficiency, if one wants to solve it in the short term. If one is to wait for the government's solutions, which lie 10, 15 or perhaps 20 years into the future, one has to wait for a very long time.

This government has obviously failed. The next government needs to kickstart the mandate period with a number of reforms. Industry must regain faith in the transition. Electric car sales must skyrocket in the same way they have done in Denmark in recent years, and permits for new production must be put in place. Then we also need more electricity – much more – and we need it faster than today's system delivers.

For us in Centerpartiet, the starting point is very clear: Strong energy and climate policy leadership can kickstart the transition again. We must have an energy system that is fossil-free, robust, and competitive. This requires three very clear priorities: more production, stronger power grids, and faster permit processes.

Firstly, more electricity production is required. We have good conditions in Sweden for onshore and offshore wind power, solar energy, bioenergy, combined heat and power, power-to-X, and life-extended nuclear power and hydropower. There are even conditions for newly built nuclear power if one wants to do it on market terms. Even geoenergy is just around the corner, and other exciting technologies are also beginning to emerge.

All fossil-free power sources are needed, but all fossil-free power sources shall not, for that reason, be granted subsidies. It is not the time for technological lock-ins, but it is the time for results. Technology neutrality is not a slogan but a necessity, because politics does not have a chance to keep up with technological development. We shall not support yesterday's solutions when the future's are more efficient and smarter.

Secondly, stronger power grids are needed. The biggest bottleneck today is not a lack of will but a lack of capacity. Companies that want to invest have to wait for years for connection, and municipalities that want to grow are stopped by grid limitations. It is not reasonable. We must shorten lead times, strengthen incentives for smarter grid expansion, and ensure that investments occur in line with the needs. Electrification must not get stuck in the bureaucracy.

Significantly tougher requirements are needed for grid companies that drag their feet regarding connection notices, and there needs to be a greater focus on making it profitable to streamline existing grids before expanding them. It is also reasonable to pause the power fees. The industry needs to standardize them – we cannot have 170 different models – and they need to be made voluntary. Then those who want to earn money by being efficient and flexible can do so without the person who wants to charge their electric car having to pay 2,200 spänn just because it happens to occur at the wrong time.

Thirdly, faster permit processes are needed. We shall have high environmental requirements in Sweden; that is a given. But there must also be clear, predictable and efficient processes. Today, regulatory frameworks are stacked on top of each other without sufficient coordination. It creates uncertainty, appeals and delays. We need a system that both protects the environment and enables investments.

Action is required from both politics and the industry. We need a municipal veto that is legally secure, compensation to municipalities and neighbors for all types of power – not just for wind power – and a clearer environmental assessment. This is what politics needs to deliver. We need to start by delivering on the requirements at the EU level regarding fast-tracks for and rapid assessments of renewables.

The industry, on its part, also needs to take responsibility. They need to have shorter response times. One cannot wait for several years to receive a notification from a grid company – and then perhaps receive a notification that contradicts the notification received previously. We need an expansion that occurs with margin. We have done that historically, which has allowed us to expand our system without it coming to a halt, but now we see that it is being slowed down. One also needs to speak with a united voice in politics, beyond individual power strokes and the needs of the moment.

Madam Speaker! Energy policy is not just about kilowatt-hours – it is about jobs, rural development, and faith in the future. When wind power is built in the countryside, the local community receives a share of the value. When bioenergy is developed, we strengthen both the climate and the profitability of forestry. When solar power is installed in agriculture and businesses, local resilience is strengthened. All of Sweden should be part of the energy transition, not just the large cities.

At the same time, competitiveness is absolutely crucial. Swedish companies should not have to hesitate regarding investments because electricity is uncertain or too expensive. Stable and fossil-free electricity is one of our greatest strategic advantages. This government is playing it away.

There are some parts of this that are extra important. The first is energy efficiency, which is the fastest way to release both energy and power. It also lowers electricity bills, both for the one who carries out the measures and for everyone else. If there is more electricity left over in the system, prices fall. It is a multi-tool that the government has completely neglected. One has both abolished the goal and created such complicated regulations for the supports that exist that it is difficult to get them to suffice. Centerpartiet believes that one needs to simplify, improve, and highlight.

The second is hydropower, which is the crown jewel of the Swedish energy system. Hydropower is a base power, but it is flexible, fast, and renewable and has a very low cost. Here, the government is busy stalling away the possibilities for better regulations. A new regulatory framework has been introduced, paused, paused again, and paused yet another time. They have even been so clumsy that they have let the industry's environmental fund, which is intended to help with compensations, be wasted on legal processes and have set a cap.

Instead of taking measures where the environmental benefit is greatest, measures are taken where the production loss is smallest. We must not exceed the ceiling of 1.5 terawatt-hours, but we must focus on the area that is best for the environment based on the energy we receive. We cannot simply assume that it is about small-scale producers but larger voices.

If one had started from environmental values, it would probably have looked a bit different. The trout in Jämtland could have survived. And small-scale hydropower in southern Sweden, where there are already natural migration barriers, would probably have received a much greater focus based on the contribution it actually gives to the energy system.

Furthermore, if one adds the fantastic potential of hydropower, one can see that it is possible to obtain twice as much power as the nuclear power the government now wants to invest in. One can obtain power faster and at a fraction of the cost. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 13 in the report.

The last thing I want to highlight is security. Russia's war in Ukraine has taught us that it is essential to be able to manage resilience and vulnerability. Recently, I met, in a Teams meeting, a general responsible for the energy supply in Ukraine. He had a simple and very clear message: Do not build on a large scale! When Russia knocks out larger plants, they do not build them back up. They build ten smaller ones.

Large-scale, regardless of type, is a threat and a vulnerability and involves far too great risks. Building decentralized makes it both difficult and economically unprofitable to knock out the power plants, because every missile or drone swarm costs more to send out than it costs to repair what it knocks out. It is a lesson that the government really should learn. Large-scale power plants are foolish. If one draws that lesson, one notices that energy communities, battery storage, and locally produced energy – whether it concerns electricity or heat – will appear in a completely different light.

In summary, the Centre Party will continue to push for more fossil-free energy throughout the country, faster and more coordinated permit processes, more powerful investments in the power grids, strengthened local anchoring, and compensation where the energy is produced.

Electrification is not a threat. It is an opportunity. With our policy, one will earn money by being the one who leads and does the right thing. This requires political courage. It is not always what generates the most headlines that is the most important to implement. Sweden can lead the green industrial revolution, and that requires a new government after the election.

(Applause)

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Which type of energy has increased the most with the Tidö government and Ebba Busch as Minister for Energy? I shall tell you shortly.

During this parliamentary term, there has been a lot of talk and very little workshop. At the beginning of the parliamentary term, the Tidö parties made a big deal out of changing the goal to fossil-free. That meant that all fossil-free types of energy would be welcome.

Nothing could be a bigger lie, Madam Speaker. The energy source that has increased the most is, in fact, fossil energy. Between 2022 and 2024, the annual use increased by 14 terawatt-hours. That is an increase of approximately 10 percent. We have never seen that in modern times in Sweden.

Furthermore, it has occurred in a situation where Europe sends more money to buy fossil fuels from Putin than we send to Ukraine to support them in the war. By driving up fossil energy use, we undermine our own security. The Tidö government has chosen to spend 57 billion on subsidizing fossil fuels instead of making Sweden more energy independent.

After Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Miljöpartiet proposed a ban on the import of fossil fuels from Russia. This caused Carl-Oskar Bohlin of Moderaterna to rage. And the Tidö parties continued to import Russian fossil gas for two years after that. In recent days, we have also been able to read an essay on how Carl-Oskar Bohlin hates the energy source that has great potential when it comes to making Sweden more energy independent.

It is obvious that this is harmful to the climate. Emissions have increased avalanche-like during this government's time. We also see how it undermines our security. Miljöpartiet has long warned about the risks of being stuck in a dependency on energy from rogue states and has advocated for increasing self-sufficiency of energy in Sweden.

Now we see a new war breaking out in the Middle East. USA and Israel have attacked Iran, which in turn has responded by closing the Strait of Hormuz, through which a large part, approximately one-fiftieth, of the world's fossil fuels pass. We can therefore expect increased fuel prices and also that the price of electricity is driven up, as Europe's electricity production is dependent on fossil gas. That is something we would have needed to protect ourselves against.

Against that background, it is extra harmful that the government has essentially stopped the expansion of new power production in Sweden and put the brakes on electrification.

One might wonder how it is that fossil energy has increased so sharply during the Moderate-led government. The Tidö parties themselves must actually answer that. But we have been able to read some interesting reviews in the media, not least regarding the Moderates' connections to the fossil industry dating all the way back to the 90s. Among other things, Ulf Kristersson and Gunnar Strömmer, during their time at Timbro, received money from the fossil industry to spread disinformation about the climate. That also seems to persist. Recently, for example, Aftonbladet revealed that the MEP and Moderate Jörgen Warborn has collaborated with oil companies and allies of Trump to lower the EU's climate policy and thereby make us more dependent on fossil fuels from both Russia and the USA.

Madam Speaker! How is it going for the fossil-free energy that the Tidö parties promised would be expanded? To begin with, the pace for the renewable has decreased by approximately 75 percent. When we handed over government power, we had an expansion rate of power production of 3 gigawatts per year. It was a historically high expansion rate, which has given Sweden a large energy surplus that we would need to convert into electrification. But it has stalled completely. We also lack near-term goals for more energy for 2030 and 2035.

The sharp reduction is due, among other things, to the fact that the Tidö parties, through the municipal veto, are stopping in principle all wind power that could be added out in the municipalities. And a dead hand has been placed over the entire Baltic Sea regarding offshore wind power. They have said a direct no to the equivalent of more than ten nuclear reactors instead of giving the defense the task of coordinating with the energy interest.

The conditions for solar energy have deteriorated by imposing a penalty tax on it, as a tax deduction of 60 öre that solar cell owners received was removed. The green deduction has been lowered in a recession, when we should have needed more people working in the energy industry. We need to increase self-sufficiency in Sweden, not least through solar energy.

Energy efficiency has an enormous potential to lower energy costs. Calculations show that we can push down electricity prices by 50 percent if we improve efficiency by 10 percent, because the marginal pricing we have affects it in that way. I believe that very many electricity customers would have been happy for that during this winter. But that has not been done; all previous support for energy efficiency has been removed. The government itself assesses that the low-set EU goals for energy efficiency by 2030 will not be reached.

Instead, electricity customers have been hit by high price peaks due to the fact that we do not have more controllable power. Above all, they have been hit by increased grid fees because we have had very poor management. The government's own agency, Energimarknadsinspektionen, has emphasized that the grid companies are charging far too high fees, but Ebba Busch has done nothing about that matter. She has also not done anything about the poorly introduced power tariffs, which could be designed in a sensible way and lower the total cost for the electricity grids.

Madam Speaker! I was about to forget – it was nuclear power that was supposed to solve everything. How is it going then, one might wonder?

We will build nuclear power during the first 100 days, said Elisabeth Svantesson. It shall be built without state support, said Ulf Kristersson – that was before the election. Ten new reactors we shall have, said Romina Pourmokhtari. A first groundbreaking shall be taken before the end of the mandate period, said Ebba Busch.

Now, almost the entire parliamentary term has passed. The timeline for new nuclear power has completely collapsed. In principle, nothing has happened other than that Vattenfall has settled on a technology choice. They still have not chosen a supplier. No investment decision is in sight until 2029. Furthermore, the government's ambitions for two large reactors by 2035 have shrunk to a tiny fraction. Vattenfall is now considering a small SMR reactor that could potentially be ready by 2035 at the earliest. Add to that the fact that all current nuclear power projects in the EU have been delayed by an average of ten years, and that none of the suppliers that Vattenfall is in dialogue with have built a single reactor of the type we are talking about.

Most of it, therefore, indicates that Sweden can have any potential new nuclear power in place at the earliest at some point after 2045, that is to say, after Sweden is supposed to have achieved climate neutrality. The truth is that this government's nuclear power plans have been completely unrealistic. They actually have nothing to do with the climate transition, except possibly because they hinder and delay it.

More dispatchable power is something I have requested in several exchanges. The government's policy has not provided a single kilowatt more of fossil-free dispatchable power. What has been added is Öresundsverket, which is a fossil gas-fired power plant. Skellefteå Kraft has also built an additional turbine in a power station in Rengård, and that has provided 35 megawatts more.

The Tidö parties have previously stood here and boasted about the balance of power but have not had the slightest clue as to what it actually consists of. That has not been possible to answer in a single one of my exchanges. What it is about is that the forecast for electricity consumption has been revised downwards. That might seem good – if it had depended on an active policy for energy efficiency. In reality, it is due to a totally failed electrification. Industry is slowing down its investment plans, and electrification within the transport sector has ground to a halt.

What has actually improved the power balance and given us more power is wind power. Several previous speakers from the Tidö parties have disparaged the fact that wind power cannot contribute more power when we need it. At the same time, they stand and boast about an improved power balance that is due to precisely more wind power.

The confusion is, therefore, total among the Tidö parties, and that can also be seen in the failed result of the energy policy, not least now during the winter. We have had high price peaks, and that is because one has not invested in more controllable power, more flexibility and more energy storage, which would be needed. The high price peaks have also been due to low levels in the water reservoirs. These could have been more full if we had had more power production in total.

Madam Speaker! I do not know what to compare this parliamentary term to. I am closest to thinking of the large fatbergs that have clogged up all of London's sewage system. Nothing happens. It is a total standstill. That is approximately how we can summarize this parliamentary term.

Madam Speaker! For me, it is very clear that Sweden needs a new direction in energy policy. We need a government that takes Sweden's and Europe's security seriously and increases the domestic production of sustainable energy. We need a government that increases electricity production, achieves more dispatchable power, and supports the electrification of the industrial and transport sectors through long-term rules of the game. Not least, Madam Speaker, we need a government that takes the climate threat seriously and offers sustainable alternatives at a low cost for households and industry.

We in Miljöpartiet naturally stand behind all our reservations, but I choose to move for approval only to reservation 27.

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

Josef Fransson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Here in the energy debate, I want, true to my habit, to say a few words about wind power and in that context talk a little bit about its particular worthlessness in our power system. I do not, therefore, intend to speak about how wind power destroys the living environment of people and animals, but about its total inability to create economic prosperity for the Swedish people as nuclear power and hydropower have done for so long.

As usual in the energy debate, a number of debaters exhibit palpable resistance to technical arguments. But I shall make one further attempt. I shall try to make it so pedagogical that a middle school student should be able to grasp the content.

As is known, one is not allowed to bring props up to the rostrum here in the chamber. Therefore, I simply have to refer to the figures I intend to speak about. I have posted nice visual diagrams on my social media – on Facebook and on X. You can go in and look at them if you want a bit more meat on the bones regarding the subject.

Madam Speaker! I intend to speak a little about Sweden's enormous electricity export. It is no longer small. In 2025, it amounted to a full 21 percent of the total production. That is how much left the country in net export. Some who suffer from technical illiteracy claim that this shows that we do not have any problems at all with the energy supply in Sweden. But nothing could be more wrong. Despite this enormous export, the southern half of Sweden, especially Skåne, suffers from a shortage of power, which means that companies cannot invest and expand as they would have wished. We have a shortage of power and a surplus of energy at the same time.

Why is it like this then? Well, this stems from the decommissioning of nuclear power. Predictable base load has been removed while investments have been made in weather-dependent wind power. In this way, the previous S-MP government has created Europe's weakest electricity price area in SE4.

Now I shall try to focus a little bit on the consequences of the insane choices that politics has made. The truth is that almost all the added wind power is, in practice, exported. It is practically, in principle, unusable in Sweden due to the lack of regulatory power.

It is naturally a number of factors that determine electricity import and electricity export during the individual hour. Temperature has historically been the absolutely dominant, but now it has also become wind conditions. The net export of electricity is today very much governed by the supply of wind power.

During December 2025, the supply of wind power and Sweden's net export were nearly at the same value, hour by hour. This means that wind power is completely governing the export. This can be seen in one of the diagrams that I have posted on social media this morning.

If one looks at the supply of wind power on an annual basis, one sees that it correlates almost perfectly with Sweden's net exports. I also have an illustrative diagram here that one can look at. Now my speaking time is beginning to run out.

In 2013, we had 10 terawatt-hours of net export and 10 terawatt-hours of added wind power. In 2024, we had 40 terawatt-hours of net export and 39 terawatt-hours of wind power. Between those, the relationship is nearly linear.

For Swedish companies and Swedish taxpayers, wind power is worthless in the true sense of the word. If this is not enough to say no to new wind power, one has lost their way in their ideology.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 14.)

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