(cont. from § 14) El market issues (cont. NU17)

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Monica Haider spoke in her speech about stability in a restless world. It is very wise and good. But one of the greatest vulnerabilities in our electricity system is the many miles of transmission lines. These are overhead lines that are built with major encroachments, with little understanding for those who are affected and at insufficient compensation levels.

Nevertheless, the Social Democrats want overhead power lines to be the standard choice in new construction, despite the fact that it increases vulnerability, despite the fact that it increases intrusion, and despite the fact that the popular opposition is compact.

My question to Monica Haider is the following. How can one justify continuing to build overhead power lines despite knowing that they increase vulnerability and despite the fact that they take an extremely long time to build?

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

Monica Haider (S)

Mr. Speaker! The answer to the question is simple. We want stable and low prices. Burying the cables in the ground is at least twice as expensive as building overhead lines, say the experts who know this better than I do. That is the simple answer.

Sometimes, however, one needs to bury the cables. If we were to do that everywhere, our electricity prices would become even more expensive than they are today. We do not think that is reasonable.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Now there are professors, for example at Uppsala University, who say that the costs do not need to become higher at all, especially if one counts in the intrusions that occur when one works with overhead lines, even more when one counts with the vulnerability that one automatically builds into the system with cables above ground.

There are also other techniques than just looking at overhead lines, as the Social Democrats do. We do not only need to talk about burying things, but there are other more land-saving techniques. It could be about ensuring that we build in margins in what we build. It could be about increased voltage levels. It could be about building more vertically or more horizontally in existing corridor areas. There is a multitude of different measures that do not only involve burying.

Nevertheless, the Social Democrats believe that the standard choice should be air defense, which increases the intrusion and increases the vulnerability – despite the fact that we live in the restless times that Monica Haider spoke about. I think and the Center Party find this problematic because it increases our vulnerability completely unnecessarily.

How is Monica Haider to handle the vulnerability that her policy leads to when one is only to focus on air corridors – especially in these turbulent times?

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

Monica Haider (S)

Mr. Speaker! The methods that Rickard Nordin lists, apart from burying the pipeline in the ground, we Social Democrats have no objection to. It is not really we politicians who decide the methods. That is not how it actually works.

A professor in Uppsala says that it is cheap to bury the lines in the ground, but I do not have that information. It is a bit strange when there are many other experts working with the issue, not just the grid companies, who say that it is twice as expensive. The information that it would be cheap to bury it, I do not have, Rickard Nordin.

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me, before I begin my speech, mention that this is the first time I have stood in the speaker's chair since March 4, when I suffered a presumed drop in blood pressure and fell to the floor just below where I stand now. At that moment, my body showed that it is not quite a team player, but my colleagues in the committee and also the Riksdag's staff showed that they really are team players when it counts. I received a lot of great help then and have also received world-class care and will be fully recovered by the end of May. Then I look forward to hosting a "stänkare" – for everyone who understands my Beck-related jokes.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs an electricity system that works in people's everyday lives and that delivers when families are trying to piece together their life puzzles, when companies are considering new investments, and when industry wants to carry out its transition without its competitiveness being impaired. That is fundamentally what this debate is about.

For all too long, an energy policy was pursued that did not take sufficient responsibility for the whole. One looked at individual types of power, but not at the system. One saw symbol and poster politics, but not always the consequences for families, companies, and Swedish competitiveness. One introduced incomprehensible capacity tariffs, which gave households double price signals.

The results of that policy are known to the Swedish people, because it is felt in the wallet. Southern Sweden became more vulnerable. The price differences between different parts of the country became large. The transmission problems became clearer, and the bottleneck revenues skyrocketed. And when the world around us now shakes, we are affected more here at home than we have been previously.

Mr. Speaker! That is why the difference in energy policy matters, and that is why the Moderate-led government has changed course. The Riksdag has adopted a new energy policy direction with planning goals and security of supply in focus. Layer after layer of obstacles that stand in the way of new fossil-free base load are successively removed. Regulations and governance are also changed to speed up the grid expansion and clarify the authorities' responsibilities for a robust electricity system.

It is important to have that systemic perspective, because Sweden's electricity problems cannot be solved with a single measure. We need more production, more predictability, and a stronger grid. In that case, the market needs to reward what actually strengthens the security of supply more than it does today.

That those who contribute to system utility should also be paid for it should be a matter of course. In the same way, those who create costs in other parts of the system should pay for it. Such an arrangement is difficult to perfect. But my view is that we are at least heading in that direction. And politics needs to take responsibility for the whole that the market does not solve on its own. Even benefits other than an individual produced kilowatt-hour need to be rewarded.

Mr. Speaker! Right now we see how vulnerable the energy market is to unrest in the world. The situation around the Strait of Hormuz has in a short time contributed to sharp price increases in oil and gas, which not only makes it more expensive to fuel the car but also has knock-on effects on the electricity market when European gas turbines also set the marginal price in Sweden.

When the situation is such, we cannot only talk about long-term reforms. We also need to act here and now. All else being equal, a price increase of 30 US dollars per barrel of oil means an increase in Swedish inflation of approximately 1 percentage point. So closely linked are energy and economy. Our task is to do everything possible so that Sweden does not lose control in the way that happened in 2022. High prices must be fought, and the Swedish economy must be protected.

Mr. Speaker! That is why the government has put forward a new electricity and gas support for households across the country based on the consumption in expensive January and expensive February. It can be seen as a compensation for decommissioned nuclear power, and it is a good example of how we use our sound public finances to take Sweden through very difficult times. With a low national debt and high credit rating, we have a room for maneuver to act that few other European countries can match.

Furthermore, the tax on fuels has been lowered to the EU's minimum level, and an application is being made to also be able to lower it below the minimum level, which could enable a further reduction of around 3 kronor per liter of fuel. For families who have too much month left at the end of the salary, it makes a big difference. And it is almost frightening to think about what the prices would have been if the taxation and the reduction obligation had remained at the level that applied when the previous mandate period ended – 35, 40, 45 kronor per liter of diesel? It is alarming to think in those terms.

Mr. Speaker! In debates on committee reports, it is common to go through and respond to some of the opposition's proposals. I will not do that today, because it is a bit too scattered. Not a single proposal in this report is agreed upon. What is mentioned regarding energy policy is most often the demand for broad dialogue, probably because the Social Democrats need to be saved from their coalition partners' reluctance to compromise on nuclear power. I will therefore content myself with stating that the left-wing parties cannot quite get it together in the energy area – not there either.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal and against all motions. Here and now, we are doing what Sweden needs in the short term to manage the crisis, and we are doing what is required in the long term for the Swedish economy to be robust, growing, and inclusive.

When we look out at the rest of the world, it becomes clear: if you choose a German energy policy, you get a German economic development. Our side of politics will not subject the Swedish people to such experiments.

Mr. Speaker! What is needed is not a restart or a new direction. What is needed is that we hold the course and increase the pace.

(Applause)

In this speech, Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M) agreed.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating the Committee on Economic Affairs' report NU17 Electricity Market Issues.

The government emphasizes that the expansion of the electricity system and the development of the electricity market need to take place from a system perspective and in a coordinated and technology-neutral manner. When it comes to a technology-neutral manner, I must say that if there is one thing this government has become known for, it is that the technology is pointed out and clear. It is about nuclear power, nuclear power, and after that, nuclear power.

I would not have minded if the market had strongly pointed out a move that investors also believe in strongly. But that is not the case.

Listen now, if there is anyone listening out there! The Minister for Energy often points out that the electricity price has been halved since she took office. But now I come to a question that I think many should scrutinize. What decisions have the government or the minister taken that have led to lower electricity prices compared to the chaos in 2022? Remember what I said! It is about the electricity price. That one buys votes with energy tax and such things is another matter. But what has led to lower electricity prices?

If we look at what the government and the Minister for Energy have said in Brussels, it is clear that they do not want to protect Swedish electricity customers.

There are also strong voices in the EU to remove gas's extreme price impact on the EU's electricity prices. The Commission's President has tried to develop various proposals and underlying documents for a redesign of the marginal pricing on the electricity market. But lo and behold – on March 4, the Prime Minister writes to the EU Commission's President that he opposes removing gas's impact on electricity. This would, in fact, conflict with a competitive market, where marginal pricing ensures that demand is met at the lowest cost.

So, they want this high gas price impact to continue. Through that, they want to send signals to investors. That is how I interpret it. This government is now searching high and low for investors for new nuclear power. It is clear that these consequences arise. Since they do not want to remove the price impact of gas, they are prepared to sacrifice Swedish households and companies for their wet dream of new nuclear power. Remember what I say: If the market pointed it out, I would not be against it. Then one would be forced to accept that this is what is seen as important.

Madam Speaker! Everyone knows that politics is dirty. One tries to disparage their opponents and elevate oneself or one's party. This also applies to this policy area – there is no difference. But for us to manage a rapid and comprehensive climate transition, which is necessary, parts of society must be electrified. I believe that almost everyone agrees on that. This applies to transport, industry, and other activities that today are dependent on fossil fuels.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent energy warfare have shaken Europe's energy markets. Energy prices have skyrocketed, not least because many EU countries have not taken the climate threat seriously enough and therefore have not switched to fossil-free alternatives in time.

Sweden's situation is, however, different. Sweden is Europe's largest exporter of electricity, and the Swedish energy system can be considered very robust and reliable. Production from hydropower, nuclear power, and wind power is stable, and production costs have not increased significantly during recent years. Nevertheless, Swedish households and industries are hit hard by the price developments on the continent.

I and my party comrades in Vänsterpartiet have long warned about the risks of the current pricing model, which causes the continent's electricity prices to affect the Swedish market. We believe that it is a fundamental weakness in the system. Therefore, we advocate for the model with Sverigepriser, where the domestic market is clearly separated from the export market.

The model with Swedish prices means that the electricity used in Sweden is priced first and that the surplus is subsequently exported at the prices that apply on the European market. There will be no difference for those who buy from us. It is central that electricity intended for export should not determine the price for Swedish electricity customers. The model also means that Sweden's four electricity price areas will remain, at least in the short term, so that the industry's confidence in the cheap electricity in northern Sweden is not jeopardized – it is because of that which one invests there.

I believe that the government should promptly return with concrete proposals on how Sweden prices can be introduced. The government should also act actively at the EU level and clearly declare Sweden's intention to introduce this model.

In line with this, a consultation process should obviously be initiated with the other member states, particularly our Nordic neighboring countries, to clarify technical issues and establish a timetable for implementation. As stated in the submission, I am strongly critical that the government has done nothing, or at least not enough, to protect Swedish electricity customers from very high electricity price peaks.

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 2.

It is clear that the government "suits" it when it comes to protecting Swedish households and companies; it itself benefits from the concept that prevails today. The system enriches the power producers, the state treasury and obviously Vattenfall, our own company, which owns both production and the electricity grid. It gives money back to the state, which is obviously good from one perspective. VAT is added to all electricity bills and goes directly to the state treasury. Add to that the bottleneck revenues, which we were touching upon. They end up with Riksgälden. Then there are the greedy EU countries that want to get hold of them. There we are at least in agreement, to find something positive.

Madam Speaker! Let me be clear. That electricity production and electricity distribution have become like any other commodity is a failure, at least from the consumers' point of view. Everyone who has received their electricity bill must surely agree. Why has control over a socially important function such as electricity been released? It is completely incomprehensible to me.

They try to persuade the rural population to say yes to wind farms. The argument is that we need more electricity for the transition of industry and transport and to save the climate. So far, that is obviously good. But then it is revealed that the production is sold to foreign countries on long-term contracts and that the electricity is used in server halls which in turn are owned by other countries. Then you surely understand that many who see this feel cheated and frustrated? Then there is, of course, technology that we cannot control, but it is a fact that it is on long-term contracts that foreign companies buy the production. Add to that that the state is the big winner when it comes to the revenues that trickle down through the energy tax and the VAT. What is then left for the municipalities that yielded the local environment to these turbines? Yes, not so much as one had hoped for, in any case.

Madam Speaker! I am convinced that more of the resources extracted in the countryside must contribute to the municipalities where the production takes place. Only then will we gain acceptance and be able to expand electricity production in line with the transition that is needed. You should know that a lot is at stake. It is about our competitiveness and what kind of industry can stand strong in tomorrow's world.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is a part of the EU and is therefore closely integrated with the European electricity market. It is fundamentally a strength. We are unusually good at producing electricity. That means that we can sometimes export when we have a surplus and sometimes need to be able to import, especially power.

I want to emphasize how important this integration is, not least at a time when certain parties, in their alarmism, argue that Sweden would benefit from isolating itself from the European electricity market and introducing national Swedish prices. The reality is different. We sometimes need electricity from our neighboring countries, but above all capacity, and our neighboring countries need us. Just as many point out, we have a surplus of electricity on an annual basis. Cooperation and the transfer of electricity between countries contribute to both efficiency and robustness in the system. To compromise on cooperation would not make us stronger but weaker.

Madam Speaker! During previous parliamentary terms, planned electricity production has decreased while weather-dependent production has been significantly expanded. A weather-dependent electricity system is challenging even in peacetime. In an uncertain security policy situation, it becomes a clear vulnerability in times of crisis.

Against that background, it would be irresponsible to reduce our cooperation with our neighboring countries, especially when parts of the planned production that previously existed have not yet been replaced. On the contrary, we need to both strengthen our own electricity system and safeguard European integration. We also need to demand that our neighboring countries pursue a responsible energy policy where long-term perspective and system stability weigh more heavily than short-term symbolic politics.

Madam Speaker! However, that does not mean that everything is working as it should. Swedish households and companies deserve stable and more predictable electricity prices. Security of supply at reasonable prices is crucial for both welfare and competitiveness.

To achieve a robust and secure electricity system, a better geographical balance is required. Today, a large part of Sweden's electricity is produced in the northern part of the country, while the largest consumption occurs in the southern part of the country. This means that electricity must be transported over long distances. Furthermore, planned nuclear reactors have been decommissioned in southern Sweden by previous governments. This creates bottlenecks in the power grids and contributes to price differences between electricity areas.

Therefore, we need to do two things in parallel.

Firstly: increase electricity production in southern Sweden. During the mandate period, the Government has presented a large number of measures to strengthen the electricity system here and now, and the conditions for new planned nuclear power are essentially in place.

Secondly: expanding and reinforcing the electricity grids. Here, Svenska kraftnät has a central role as the responsible authority for the transmission grid. The Government has also tasked the authority with developing the long-term planning to meet the growing demand for electricity with high security of supply.

In addition to this, the electricity price area divisions are being reviewed in order to create more purposeful and fair price areas. Svenska kraftnät is working on analyzing different alternatives and will return with its conclusions.

The government is also reviewing the grid fees and the power fees. It is reasonable that customers are met with clear, fair, and predictable costs. It should be easy to do the right thing. It should not cost an arm and a leg to keep homes and houses heated and functioning.

Madam Speaker! At the same time, important work is currently underway to modernize the legislation. In February, the Government submitted a proposal that clarifies the system responsibility in the electricity system, phases out designated electricity contracts, and facilitates energy sharing.

The proposals shall increase security of supply and promote competitive prices on both electricity and grid. This is the final step in the government's review of the rules on the electricity market. Now, the Electricity Act shall be repealed and replaced by an Electricity Market Act and an Act on Electrical Lines.

Madam Speaker! What is happening now is a long-term effort to re-establish a robust and secure electricity system. After many years of instability in energy policy, the foundation is now being laid for stability, predictability, and increased security of supply.

Therefore, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Brodin, for the speech!

The member mentions that parties want to isolate themselves from the market and mentions Sverigepriser. I hope that the member can explain to me how Sverigepriser causes one to isolate oneself from the market. That is question one.

Question two: What has the Minister for Energy, who belongs to the same party as the member, done? Mention something that the Minister for Energy has done! She often points out that the electricity price has been halved since she took office.

What I am asking about is, therefore, what the minister has done that has led to lower electricity prices. Mention something she has done that has led to lower electricity prices.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the questions!

I will begin with what the Minister for Energy has done and what decisions the government has made during the mandate period.

We are cleaning up in energy policy by creating the conditions to get stable and secure electricity in place in southern Sweden. But we are not only working with what is long-term, as a security for Sweden's sake, but also with what is short-term.

One looks, for example, at the harmful combined heat and power tax and at what is being done for the reserve capacity. Nevertheless, 7,000 megawatts have been added to the system in an attempt to push down prices, because we have our electricity price area division in Sweden. It was once upon a time Denmark that forced Sweden into that when they reported us to the EU Commission in 2011.

Here we need to look at many parallel things, which was not done previously. It is also about taking responsibility for ensuring that prices are pushed down.

We have an Energy Minister who takes Sweden's interests to the EU and puts a stop to the bottleneck revenues going to the European electricity market to do other countries' homework when we in Sweden have done our homework.

Sometimes it sounds to the member as if our electricity system now, with this government, is not where it should be. But everything indicates that with the energy policy that previous governments pursued, Germany's idea was not so very perfect.

Germany's idea of completely renewable power production leads to considerably higher prices and instability in an uncertain global situation. That is not where we should go. Here we need to adopt a real, genuine energy policy. I have not seen that presented in a responsible way from Vänsterpartiet.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I heard no answer to what I asked about. Mention a single thing that has been decided on which has led to lower electricity prices. The Minister often highlights that the electricity price has been halved since she took office. I received no answer regarding a decision that has led to lower electricity prices.

This [argument] about wanting to protect customers in Sweden and have lower electricity prices is incorrect. On March 5, the day after the Prime Minister wrote to Ursula von der Leyen, which I cited, Ebba Busch wrote a letter together with counterparts in six other countries. The letter is an uncritical tribute to marginal pricing and how the export market for electricity works today.

They have not even tried to protect Swedish customers from the price peaks that it leads to. Otherwise, I agree with the member's analysis of Germany's situation. But we would not need to be infected by those prices.

The member did not answer my question. How does the member link Sverigepriser with isolating themselves from the market? These are very simple questions for a member to answer.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you again, member!

I do not know if the member did not quite listen to my previous speech, but we will set that aside for a moment.

It is true that we have an Energy Minister who usually says that prices have been halved. The total electricity cost during the mandate period, or from 2022 to 2025, has decreased on average by 2,000 kronor per year for an apartment and by 10,000 kronor per year for a standard house.

As I said earlier, over 7,000 megawatts of new installed production capacity has been added. The power balance has nevertheless improved by 2,000 megawatts. More companies and industries can now get a connection.

We have now also, for the first time in history, lowered the electricity tax. I am not sure if that is what the member means, if I listened correctly to his speech before. One also looks at the whole. One also puts a stop to the capacity charges. The EU shall not come and tell us that we should over-implement EU directives into Swedish legislation.

Here we must ensure that we safeguard our citizens' and our companies' money. It is to take responsibility for the energy policy and ensure that we still have availability but also a robust and secure electricity system. That is not what we have with the opposition's energy policy. Thank goodness we have a government that takes responsibility for the energy policy.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I can start by advising Camilla Brodin to speak with her own local politicians. If one wants more electricity in southern Sweden, the Kristdemokraterna are one of the parties that are best at saying no to new electricity production.

After the only decision that has been made in Herrljunga municipality this year, Camilla Brodin's own party colleague says: We do not need more electricity in southern Sweden. There is a certain internal lesson to be learned here for Camilla Brodin. Centerpartiet is the polar opposite of the party that says yes to the most projects.

Madam Speaker! We live in a restless time. Russia's warfare has shown that energy production and energy infrastructure are given targets in that warfare. The Defence Preparedness Board stated in 2017 that a decentralized electricity system is less vulnerable than a centralized one.

That observation was refuted by the Tidö government, even though all experiences in Ukraine show that decentralization and many small units are much safer than a few.

My question to the government, to the Christian Democrats, and to Camilla Brodin is: What conclusions do you draw regarding the Swedish electricity system when you see Russia's warfare?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the questions!

When it comes to my party saying no to electricity in southern Sweden, it is because one sees that it is not the right type of electricity with the characteristics required for us to be able to push down the prices. Here, the previous government has contributed to the fact that we in this chamber voted on Ringhals 1 and 2.

I then had a proposal for a committee initiative, which I know the member will well remember. It was about that we should keep the delivery-secure reactors, which could still ensure that they contribute something to the systems, until there is something else in place. It is not more wind power in the system that we need in southern Sweden in order for us to be able to achieve robustness and stability. Here, one has done one's homework a bit more carefully than the member claims.

We Christian Democrats also do not want to revoke the municipal veto. Every municipality has municipal politicians who listen to their citizens, and that is something we do not want to remove, just as I know that the Center Party, Rickard Nordin's party, does not want to do when it comes to, for example, mining. In that case, the municipal veto is very important. I would have wished that the Center Party had wanted to give municipal residents this right also within energy policy.

I will not make too big a stretch, but it looks to be a bit hit and miss with the cooperation within the opposition. Miljöpartiet is the party that says the most no's. There may be different surveys, but several surveys show that it is so.

We trust the Armed Forces, and we trust the conversations we have with the Armed Forces. Previous governments may not have gone into depth on this sufficiently to be able to have the good conversations and deliver an energy policy that is adequate.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Imagine that the Christian Democrats could not refrain from also making this debate a nuclear power debate!

That is done despite the fact that Vattenfall has said that the reactors would have been decommissioned anyway, and despite the fact that Svenska kraftnät, the Energy Agency, and Västra Götalandsregionen have pointed out in all scenarios that we need more land-based wind power. Still, the Christian Democrats stand here and talk about nuclear power and about reactors that would have been decommissioned anyway according to Vattenfall themselves, even if the costs had been taken. They would have been decommissioned today, 2025–2026. That can be read on Vattenfall's website.

My question was primarily about Russia's warfare. I have personally met a general who works with the energy system, and he said: If Russia bombs a power plant, we build ten small new ones!

This government has overturned what the Defence Preparation Board collectively said about a decentralized energy system in 2017, contrary to what all of Russia's warfare shows. They have chosen to invest in an energy production that is centralized to a few individual nodes despite the fact that it increases our vulnerability. It is not listening to the Armed Forces; it is blindly putting on the blindfolds and pushing on!

The defense forces in Ukraine say that it is madness to build large units. What is being built there now is as small-scale as it can be and has local energy storage. The blast effect in a solar park is very small, but the blast effect in a large power plant and a large facility is large.

My question to Camilla Brodin is once again: What conclusions have Camilla Brodin and the government drawn regarding energy policy and regarding a decentralized energy system in light of Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker and members of the House! It is good that we have a great commitment to Ukraine in this situation, and I perceive that all parties in Sweden's Riksdag have that.

When it comes to listening to the Armed Forces, we naturally take responsibility and do so. That being said, we do not put all our eggs in one basket. We are creating the conditions for this government to be able to plan for predictable and secure electricity production. This does not solely involve nuclear power. I hope the member is well-informed enough to know how the electricity system actually works.

Let us look at Germany's Energiewende and what it has done to German energy policy. I do not want us to copy and paste it, but sometimes it sounds like it is exactly where we should go, according to Member Rickard Nordin. It has turned out to be a complete failure.

This government both acts, listens and takes responsibility.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Some parties in this chamber seem to need a lesson in the difference between correlation and causality. That the power grid is being expanded is not about wind power. It is about the fact that the expansion is needed because reinvestments in the existing grid must be made, and it is about increased electricity consumption.

With the logic that the Sweden Democrats advocate, the anti-intellectual logic, we might as well blame the climate emissions on the reduced number of pirates in the world. That correlation is very clear. The causality, on the other hand, is completely non-existent.

If one continues listening to the Sweden Democrats, one hears that Pågen, which they refer to, has not received its grid connection. It received it five years ago. There is so much old, outdated information in this debate. It is the same thing when it comes to decommissioned nuclear reactors. The biggest threat right now is that the existing reactors are being decommissioned because the government is going to unilaterally subsidize new reactors with hundreds of millions. It stands very clearly in the referral responses that have been submitted.

The electricity market issues, which the report should actually be about despite some parties still wanting it to be a nuclear power debate, live a bit too often in an obscured existence in comparison to the debate on electricity production. We need to change that, and quickly.

At the same time as the government spends hundreds of millions on unilateral subsidies, they are effectively pulling the rug out from under the market we actually have, without analyzing the systemic effects. Simultaneously, the government neglects the very foundation of the electricity system – how the market functions. When the consequences of this policy begin to show, we risk getting an electricity market that does not just limp, but completely cracks.

There are follow-on effects when one chooses technologies so unilaterally. Investments in other solutions are omitted. Uncertainty increases. What was supposed to be a robust and diversified system instead becomes increasingly vulnerable. That a government calling itself bourgeois conducts this selective industrial policy and chooses to invest in Sweden's largest individual technology choice and industrial project of all time risks becoming increasingly costly. It is remarkable. It is almost as risky as the investments in the warship Vasa. Faith in the market seems to have been replaced by faith in a single technical solution.

Another example of the government not having a grip on the electricity system is the introduction of power tariffs. Instead of creating incentives for smart use of electricity, one practically has a system that is difficult for households and companies to understand. It risks punishing rather than guiding, and it is not sufficiently linked to actual system benefit.

The capacity tariffs could be a powerful tool to free up capacity in the electricity system. But that requires that they are steered correctly, that they are standardized, and that they are made voluntary with clear price signals and transparency. Then they can also be acted upon, but as it stands now, they risk instead undermining confidence in the entire electricity market.

The government has also not stopped any capacity tariffs. They have been very clear about what they are urging companies to do, but it is not the same thing.

This is connected to a much larger deficiency. The government has not understood that flexibility must become a natural part of the electricity system. We cannot build a modern electricity system solely on more production and more lines – or we can, but it will be expensive.

We must use the electricity we have much more smartly. Flexibility is about shifting demand in time, using storage, and letting more actors contribute to the system balance. But in today's regulatory framework, it is still complicated, unclear, and in some cases directly harmful.

While countries such as Estonia and the United Kingdom, on the other hand, include flexibility directly in the electricity trade, government representatives still speak of flexibility as electricity rationing. The effect is as follows. Batteries are treated inconsistently, aggregators have difficulty operating, local flexibility markets are developing too slowly, and the incentives in electricity grid regulation are still distorted. It pays more to build new than to use what exists more smartly. This is a systemic error, and it is the government's responsibility to rectify this error.

There are also plenty of other issues to address. The electricity grid should be seen as a state matter, a basic infrastructure like motorways that should be expanded where needed. Therefore, we also believe that all large-scale production that wants a grid connection should be granted it. The money has already been collected. The 85 billion that are in bottleneck revenues in the Riksgäld's account are of no use there; instead, they should be released into the system and start working.

We know that if we had had this regulation in place, as the Center Party wants, Forsmark's nuclear reactor could have increased its output a long time ago, because they would not have had to pay an exorbitant amount for the connection. We know that offshore wind power projects, which the government has consistently rejected, could have been built faster if the connection had been brought forward. Both examples would have provided more electricity in the relatively short term in southern Sweden where it is needed most.

Therefore, I also move for approval of reservation 7 in the report.

We also know that for more people to become winners in the climate transition and want to contribute to the expansion of more production, functioning compensation systems for landowners, neighbors, and municipalities are required. The government has taken some small steps in that area. It is good that wind power money is paid out to the municipalities, but it must be enacted by law so that it does not become individual budget initiatives in individual years.

When such compensation systems are in place, conditions are also created to change, simplify, and speed up the permit process for the expansion. Not least when it concerns the electricity grids, the compensation levels need to be reviewed and the compensation models modernized. Instead of unilaterally following the grid companies' line and only focusing on space-intensive overhead lines, as this government together with the Socialdemokrater want, one should look at more alternatives in the form of space-saving technology. There are many different technologies that can be used to a significantly higher extent. This also increases acceptance, and the processes are shortened.

The permit processes must, in fact, be shortened radically. The government's dithering leads nowhere. Regulatory simplifications are needed on a broad front, not only within the energy sector but in the entire business community. This would free up resources in the authorities for what is truly important.

Madam Speaker! Electricity preparedness also needs to be strengthened. Russia's war of aggression clearly shows the vulnerability of centralized systems. Small, distributing, and self-sufficient units are much harder to knock out and are thus an important part of the future's robust energy system. This concerns both energy, fuels, and electricity. However, the government is staring blindly at power production but forgets crucial pieces of the puzzle: transmission, flexibility, storage, efficiency – all the pieces that can quickly free up capacity, lower prices, and strengthen competitiveness.

The grid regulation needs to be modernized and value flexibility. The electricity act needs to be modernized. Battery resources, even those that happen to have rubber wheels, must be allowed to contribute to the system.

In the worsened security situation we have, it is also noteworthy that we still have an emergency reserve that is run on fossil oil. Naturally, the focus should be on domestic and renewable alternatives.

So, it is not a lack of reform proposals; what is missing is political will and an understanding of the system. As long as the government continues to focus on a single solution and simultaneously fails on basic market issues such as capacity tariffs and flexibility, the problems will grow. The consequences are clear: diminished competitiveness, delayed climate transition, increased vulnerability, and increased prices.

This is a lost parliamentary term. The question is whether this is really the legacy the government wants. I know that Sweden can do more. It is high time to build an electricity system that actually works.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! I believe we can agree here in the chamber on the importance of low and stable electricity prices for Sweden's households and businesses. It cannot be overemphasized; it is what lays the foundation for our welfare. It is also the item that has sailed up to become one of perhaps the very largest items in Swedish households' expenses.

Unlike the previous speaker, I believe that the government has taken significant steps to rectify many imbalances and remnants of previous political decisions. We are not there yet, but many important, if not entirely decisive, steps have been taken. The purpose has constantly been to re-establish a functioning electricity system with increased electricity production and, ultimately, hopefully lower prices.

Among the reforms that have been launched are new rules for the electricity market. One might think it is remarkable that several of our time's most decisive decisions in the energy area were previously made without politics truly having asked what consequences the decisions would have for the country's energy supply. This was shown, not least in the report that the Swedish National Audit Office submitted, where they thought it was particularly remarkable that the effects on the electricity system's stability and its long-term capacity for security of supply had not been taken into account.

As mentioned earlier, it is especially the southern parts of the country that have had to bear the consequences of these decisions. Power shortages, capacity shortages, and at times extremely high electricity prices are the result of the policy we have had under previous governments. It was also against that background that the government took on the energy policy.

Madam Speaker! What the government base has wanted to achieve is, among other things, to establish a system where, for example, support services required for a well-functioning electricity system are also priced so that the power plants that contribute such support services can be compensated for this.

What has also been emphasized by the government is how the distribution of responsibility between the actors in the electricity system should look. It is about ensuring the operational security of the electricity system. It is about procuring planned electricity production. It is also about both planning and promoting planned electricity production where it is best needed for the system. The goal is to create a better balance between electricity production and electricity consumption in different parts of Sweden in order to be able to provide conditions for more stable and lower electricity prices so that Sweden can, in the long run, become a unified electricity price area.

I would say that an important change that the government has made is a shift in energy policy, where we have wanted to move from talking about individual types of power – which perhaps has not always succeeded – to a place where we discuss what characteristics we want the electricity system to have. It is about planning goals and what conditions the Swedish electricity system should have to deliver the electricity needed for increased electrification in order to enable the green transition. It is also about how we are to establish a security of supply goal so that we ensure that the electricity system delivers electricity at the right time and in sufficient quantity where the demand exists.

I want to conclude by saying that these are measures that are required for us to be able to re-establish a functioning electricity supply in Sweden. It has been mentioned here earlier, and I share that picture, that when this parliamentary term started, the Swedish production was not in a good state, and we had far too high variations in the price picture in different parts of Sweden. It is not sound with those types of large national differences.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Due to the government's total inability to think long-term and strategically and to prevent risks and weaknesses, Sweden is now worse equipped to meet the types of crises we see in and with the Iran war than before the Tidö government took office. Sweden is now more dependent on fossil fuels produced in Putin's Russia, the land of the mullahs Iran, Trump's USA and the land of sharia laws Saudi Arabia than before Ebba Busch became energy minister and Ulf Kristersson prime minister. This means that Sweden stands weaker and is more vulnerable. It is the households that now have to take the hit after this government's total incompetence and short-sighted thinking regarding Sweden's energy supply.

At the beginning of the parliamentary term, the Tidö parties made a great deal out of changing the goal to apply to fossil-free electricity, with some kind of promise to favor fossil-free energy sources. But nothing could be a bigger lie. For, Madam Speaker, the energy source whose use has increased the most is precisely the fossil energy. It is about a 14 terawatt-hour increase in annual use just between 2022 and 2024. It is an increase of approximately 10 percent.

It is as if one has learned nothing or cannot perform any consequence analyses whatsoever. The price shock we saw in 2022 was naturally, according to all experts, due to Russia's war of invasion against Ukraine and the fact that Europe is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, not least from Russia. In that situation, one has therefore increased the fossil dependency.

Madam Speaker! We could have pursued a policy that increased electricity production in Sweden, which stimulated Swedish farmers to produce more biogas and Swedish companies to invest in sustainable fuels and electrofuels, and which ensured that the expansion rate of fossil-free electricity actually increased. It did not have to be as it has been under this government, where the pace is significantly decreasing. It is about a reduction in the expansion by 75 percent so far during the mandate period.

I want to emphasize that what Camilla Brodin claims regarding Miljöpartiet and wind power is a pure lie. Miljöpartiet is the party that has said yes to wind power the most since 2020 and onwards.

After four years with the Tidö government, Sweden is more dependent on imported fossil energy than before. Europe spends more money on buying fossil fuels from Russia than on supporting Ukraine's war of defense. In total, the government has spent 57 billion on subsidizing fossil fuels. These are funds that instead could have supported Swedish companies to produce more sustainable energy in Sweden and make us stronger and more independent.

The increased use of fossil energy is obviously bad and harmful for the climate. Emissions have increased sharply during this government. But we also see how it undermines our security and Sweden's stability. Miljöpartiet has warned about these risks for over 20 years, but the penny has not dropped yet with the government. The answer is still to make us more dependent on fossil fuels.

Now we see a war raging in the Middle East. USA and Israel have attacked Iran, which has responded by closing the Strait of Hormuz, and the international supply chains of fossil energy are being disrupted. Fuel prices are skyrocketing. Against that background, it is extra harmful that the government has stopped both the expansion of more sustainable electricity in Sweden and the electrification that could have made us more independent of imported oil than we are today.

Another example of the government's incompetence is the introduction of power tariffs, which we are also debating in connection with this report. I pointed out that problem already a year ago and wrote a motion in the autumn that we need to pull the handbrake. This has been introduced in a pathetic way by the government, and it deserves all the criticism it has received. We could have done this in a smart way. We could have benefited those who contribute to the electricity market and the electricity system by using power in a smart way and giving a carrot to those who want to invest in solar cells, batteries, and AI-controlled management of their power consumption. This can actually contribute to reducing the grid costs for all grid customers.

Today's grid costs are not reasonable, contrary to what the Moderaterna claimed in the recent debate on electricity grid prices. They are unreasonably high compared to what they could be if we had better management and utilized the power grid more smartly.

Madam Speaker! It is clear that we need a new direction in energy policy compared to that of this government. We need a government that takes Sweden's and Europe's security seriously by increasing the production of domestic fuels. We need a government that increases the production of electricity in Sweden and has the will to electrify, support industry, and provide long-term stability. We do not need a government or a government base that laughs here in the Riksdag when large Swedish companies go bankrupt and thousands of people become unemployed. We need a government that takes the climate threat seriously and offers households sustainable alternatives at a low cost.

Madam Speaker! We purchase fossil fuels for approximately 100 billion per year in Sweden. I can think of so many better ways to use that money. We could have a policy that enables the chemical industry on the west coast to transition to biogas and hydrogen. The steel industry can also transition to electric arc furnaces and to reduction with hydrogen. District heating can contribute significantly to stabilizing the electricity system and participating in the electricity market.

If the government had had the sense to remove the electricity tax on feeding surplus electricity into district heating, we would have had a better energy system. If requirements had been set to bring in waste heat from data centers, one could have operated district heating more flexibly. If one had supported energy storage, more could have done as in Västerås and had a large energy storage for heat and thus also been able to operate electricity production more flexibly in district heating. That would have strengthened district heating's competitiveness, developed district heating and improved the electricity market.

Transport is perhaps the absolute most important in this context. We could have had significantly more electric cars powered by energy produced with solar cells on roofs, by wind turbines all around Sweden, and by the renewable, fossil-free electricity we already have. We could, above all, have had more heavy electric vehicles on the roads, produced by Swedish companies, for example Scania and Volvo, which have developed world-leading technology for heavy vehicles. But the government puts spokes in the wheels by pursuing a policy that promotes imported fossil energy over Swedish technology and over energy that we can produce sustainably in Sweden.

We could have had an energy policy and an electricity system that made us safer and more secure. We should learn from Ukraine, where Russia systematically attacks large-scale and centralized electricity production. We could have built a system with distributed, sustainable energy from sun and wind, local energy storage and green base power, and stimulated more production so that everything from residential properties to energy communities and larger electricity areas could become independent.

Madam Speaker! A real turnaround is needed in energy policy and a policy that takes responsibility for the climate, energy security, and Sweden's competitiveness. We naturally stand behind all our reservations, but I move for approval only to reservation 12.

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Lakso, for the speech!

I think it is tiresome when members request a reply that makes it feel like an interrogation in the chamber of the Riksdag. It is ultimately about what we think, not about whether we have the deepest detailed knowledge in every issue. But since Linus Lakso is a learned person and also devoted a substantial part of his speech to talking about capacity charges, I would like to ask a question of knowledge.

When did the Energy Markets Inspectorate receive a mandate to develop regulations for capacity tariffs? Who was the Energy Minister in Sweden then?

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! That we should manage based on power originally stems from an EU directive. It has been implemented in different ways across Europe, and we have seen implementations that are significantly smarter. That we should manage based on power so that we can utilize the power grid more intelligently is fundamentally a good idea that we are positive about. I hope this came across in my speech.

The directive arrived in 2021 via the EU to the Energy Markets Inspectorate. However, it is only now that we see how the electricity grid companies have designed their power tariffs. That is what we have been able to see during this mandate period. That is what has happened now.

One should have been more forward-looking earlier. The problem, however, is that the Minister for Energy has not acted and is unable to manage their agencies in an adequate way when it is seen that things are going wrong. That is the problem, and that is our criticism. My criticism is that Ebba Busch did not promptly address the problem when it was seen that this was not turning out well, but that it was going wrong. Then action would have been needed.

If Jesper Skalberg Karlsson has a different opinion than that one should tackle the problems one sees when one sees them, he is welcome to tell me that.

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to inform the Chamber that the Energy Markets Inspectorate received the assignment to develop regulations for power tariffs in March 2022. The Minister for Energy at that time was Khashayar Farmanbar, and he was a Social Democrat. The Minister for Energy who is now removing power tariffs for households and giving the assignment to develop a new model that can function in reality is Ebba Busch, and she is a Christian Democrat.

Mr. Speaker, let me also ask another question. A large part of Linus Laksos's statement was about the fact that we need to make it significantly more expensive to fuel gasoline and diesel. Without actually specifying what a reasonable price is, one can assume that it should at least be a bit over 30–35 kronor, so that one really ensures that people cannot drive cars powered by diesel or gasoline.

I therefore have a couple of questions ahead of the election on September 13 regarding what actually applies. Linus Lakso speaks here about it needing to become significantly more expensive to fuel petrol and diesel, while I see in the media that the Social Democrats' ministerial candidates want to lower the tax on petrol and diesel.

What is the situation? What can the Swedes expect after September 13 when we go to the ballot box? Is it Linus Laksos policy with more expensive fuels, or is it the Social Democrats' policy, which in some sense is the Tidö parties' policy?

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! First and foremost, Ebba Busch is not removing the capacity tariffs. She has scolded the energy companies and thinks they should remove them because she has given a mandate to investigate how they could potentially be designed better at some point in the future, perhaps in a year. It is incredibly weak action. This should be managed much more resolutely, and it should have been done a long time ago when it was seen how the grid companies began introducing the capacity tariffs.

Madam Speaker! During my speech, I never said that it would become more expensive with fossil energy. I said that it was foolish to be dependent on fossil energy.

I do not believe that the Swedish population is interested in their car being powered by oil from specifically Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Qatar. I believe that the Swedish people want cheap, sustainable transport. If it can happen with energy that we produce in Sweden with Swedish technology that can provide Swedish jobs, Madam Speaker, I believe that option will be chosen.

That is exactly what the Green Party's policy is about, while the Moderates' policy is exactly the opposite. They stopped the electrification. When Ulf Kristersson became Prime Minister, the share of electric cars was abruptly halted. The share even fell, which meant that we got more fossil fuel cars on the roads. It is a total failure and makes us more dependent on fossil energy.

This is so stupid, and that is what I mean by the total lack of being able to think strategically and long-term. It is about building away and investing away our dependence on fossil fuels and instead favoring Swedish-produced energy and Swedish technology.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 15 April.)

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