(cont. from § 3) Long-term direction of energy policy (cont. NU14)

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! One of Europe's larger producers of sheet metal for the construction industry is located in Skåne. Areco started in the Skåne town of Trelleborg and today has six factories, two of which are in Malmö. A new factory in the Skåne town of Örkelljunga will soon be inaugurated.

This is, of course, very pleasing. New factories provide new job opportunities, more growth, and better opportunities for welfare even in municipalities located outside the major cities.

What is, however, extremely tedious is that the factory to be started in Örkelljunga must be powered by diesel generators for the first few years - this because it is still not always possible to obtain a grid connection when one, as a southern Swedish company, wants to expand and, for example, start new factories.

This is a completely unreasonable situation. It is unreasonable for the companies that choose to accelerate and invest in a time of geopolitical instability. It is unreasonable from a Swedish energy policy perspective, where our USP for a long time has been that we have stable electricity supplies at low prices. But it is also unreasonable that we in southern Sweden are now forced to resort to fossil energy sources such as diesel generators in order to be able to run companies. It goes in the exact opposite direction from the climate policy goals we have set up together.

I say the same thing as I have said many times before here in the speaker's chair: It is Scanian companies and Scanians who largely pay the price for the failure that, primarily, the Social Democrats' past energy policy has entailed.

To criticize both nuclear power and, more in the near term, Öresundsverket was a mistake. The division into electricity price areas - for which the Social Democrats alone are not to be blamed - was also a mistake. And it is we in southern Sweden who are paying for this.

Today's debate on energy policy and the proposal that the government has now presented is a step toward correcting the mistakes that have been made historically regarding Sweden's energy supply.

We need to move away from the situation we unfortunately still find ourselves in, especially in southern Sweden. That companies need to resort to diesel generators in order to be able to conduct production is a clear evidence of what a failure the energy policy has been.

Mr. Speaker! How can we then do better moving forward? What I want to highlight from the government's bill are the two goals that need to characterize energy policy moving forward.

The first is the planning goal. The planning of the Swedish electricity system shall provide the conditions to deliver the electricity that is needed. Sweden needs to plan in order to be able to meet an electricity demand of at least 300 terawatt-hours 2045.

We also need to look at how this goal should be divided into different geographical areas. This needs to be clarified and controlled. This will also take effect starting in 2030.

That this is important is because energy production constantly needs to be in phase with energy consumption. Where industries are started and operated, we also need to ensure that the production of electricity increases. With the ambitions that both politics and the business community have regarding electrification and the green transition, it becomes even more important to ensure that production and consumption are in phase throughout the entire country.

The second thing I want to highlight from the bill is that we are to have a security of supply goal. I think it is very clear what this means in the document we are now discussing. It is also absolutely crucial if the Swedish electricity system is to have the ability to deliver electricity where there is demand, at the right time and in sufficient quantity.

A reliable power system is operationally secure and enables high transmission capacity - precisely the characteristics we are looking for. In such a power system, both the energy and the power must be sufficient.

We have seen in the recent past what the consequences will be for Sweden, for Swedish companies and Swedish consumers, if we do not succeed with this. That is also why Svenska kraftnät should be given an overall responsibility to carry out regular monitoring of the security of supply goal.

Mr. Speaker! If we are to be able to deliver on these two goals, we need to significantly increase the production of predictable fossil-free electricity. Specifically, it requires the addition of new nuclear power and that the existing power continues. It requires the expansion of solar and wind power but also the reinforcement and expansion of the power transmission system.

We need to continue looking at how we can improve energy efficiency. We started that after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and it needs to continue at approximately the same pace that we have managed to maintain so far.

We need a good investment climate in Sweden that makes people dare to make the investment decisions that are needed for a better electricity system. We must also ensure that households can pay their electricity bills. We must not end up in the situation we were in two winters ago, when many households were brought to their knees because of the high electricity bills.

The proposals that are on the table and that we are debating here today are actually the first step in establishing a better electricity system. I therefore move for approval of the Committee on Industry's proposal in the report.

(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! To my colleagues and if there is anyone listening out there, I will start by saying this: I am convinced that if we were to have EU elections in the winter, when it is 30 degrees cold and everyone receives their electricity bills, we would get a completely different result in the election.

We are now debating the long-term direction of energy policy, which is referred to as NU14.

The report concerns much regarding electricity supply, effects on Sweden's competitiveness in the long run and not least the future for industry in general and the steel and mining industry in particular.

In the proposition, the government states that the overall goal of the energy policy is to create conditions for efficient and sustainable energy use and cost-effective Swedish energy supply with low negative impact on health, environment and climate, as well as to facilitate the transition to an ecologically sustainable society. The goal is based on the same three pillars as the energy cooperation in the EU and aims to unite security of supply, competitiveness and ecological sustainability.

I begin already here, Mr. Speaker, by trying to explain how crazy it has become with the common energy market in the EU. Not because we should stop trading electricity, but we are pricing our own produced cheap and emission-free electricity to ourselves with the so-called marginal pricing.

Last week, Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz was in Stockholm for a meeting with Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson. On the agenda were precisely energy issues. Now the Germans imagine that they will alleviate their problems with a new leadership, this time from Sweden to Germany. Swedish fossil-free electricity shall therefore secure Germany's industry and the country's green transition - as if we have not already been hit enough by the continent's failed energy policy. Swedish customers have paid German electricity prices simply because we have a marginal pricing that has led to the producers earning a fortune, and the state then obviously ripples over even to the Ministry of Finance. How long the Swedes intend to approve this capital transfer is a mystery to me.

Vänsterpartiet has since the summer of 2022 argued that Sweden should clarify to the Commission that Sweden, as the largest exporter of electricity to neighboring countries, should be allowed to price domestic consumption separately, as it is completely horrific that Swedes should pay in the form of expensive electricity bills for other countries' failures. It must be clearly clarified here, Mr. Speaker, that Vänsterpartiet is not looking to cut cables or even limit the trade of electricity. But one does not even challenge the EU regulation or the claim that we, as they wish to assert, would discriminate against them. We do not discriminate against the buyers of our electricity. They would have to pay the same price as today for the electricity they buy, but the difference would be that we Swedes would buy our own electricity at reasonable prices.

The "Confession Team," as it is called, has all the time tried to push through the economists' haze and pushed for the same thing as we in Vänsterpartiet. We call it Sweden prices, and the Confession Team calls it the Confession model.

But one must, of course, speak plainly even about how the distribution of electricity works. We have a monopoly market regarding the electricity grid, and here, through an authority, one tries to imitate some kind of market so that the pricing will be somewhat correct. I can only state that the electricity grid companies and the electricity-producing companies will once again be the winners, and we customers are left with the bill. It is no secret that when Energimarknadsinspektionen made the decision on the revenue frameworks for the electricity grid companies, these were clearly overcompensated again – 100 billion more than the previous planning period.

Mr. Speaker! I do not intend to boast about my university credits or anything else that would give me dignity or status regarding this debate. But I can provide examples from reality even with my few school years, because I can actually count - I was quite good at it.

The annual fee for electricity distribution, the subscription, has for me increased by 40 percent compared to the previous year. The transmission fee has increased by 11 ½ percent, as has the energy tax. Hold on now! I live where we produce the majority of the surplus electricity that we export, and the production cost has definitely not increased significantly. But my electricity has become 107 percent more expensive compared to the previous year. Remember that the VAT has approximately the same effect since it is charged on the entire amount, as is the energy tax. It thus resulted in an increase of the VAT amount of more than 50 percent.

If this does not elicit reactions from the public, I will at least lose faith in the citizens and in those who elect us here in the Riksdag. I do not know what could more effectively unite civil society and the citizens.

Let me speak plainly, Mr. Speaker. That the government does not care about Swedish private consumers may be one thing, but that it risks Sweden's competitiveness and puts spokes in the wheels of the industrial sector, which wants to make a transition, defies my understanding.

I have followed and also tried to actively form an opinion on how heavy industry wants to meet the future as a pioneer, that is, to move away from carbon emissions and have products that will be in demand by tomorrow's consumers. When Swedish heavyweights in the mining and steel industries as well as our state-owned Vattenfall launched the collaborative project Hybrit, I was honestly first surprised but then very proud that we in little Sweden could go first and show how large emitters of greenhouse gases can make a transition.

I was at a breakfast seminar last week, where a book launch was given some space. The seminar was organized by Skandinaviska Policyinstitutet, and the anthology was titled De norrländska stålsatsningarna - frälsare eller gökunge? Economists in all their glory - they obviously have their place in the public debate. Magnus Henrekson and David Sundén are the authors and were also speakers. It became clear that they want to blacken the investments in hydrogen with cheap wind power as an input. It is being criticized as completely unrealistic. I cannot, Madam Speaker, help but give some reviews from the meeting.

David Sundén describes how LKAB should be listed on the stock exchange and how important it is to have board members with competence. I asked about his experience of the mining and steel industries, which was zero, obviously. I mean that there is clearly and distinctly an ongoing targeted campaign where the industry's future is being risked in order to promote nuclear power as something extraordinary and to blacken renewable wind power. It becomes clear that if the transition succeeds and starts to gain momentum and wind power is a part of that system, the image of how extraordinary nuclear power is is weakened.

I will quote a bit from the book so that you understand. "But if one chooses that path, a new dilemma arises: then there is a great risk that nuclear power will not be profitable once it is in place." They realize and write themselves that it is clear that the case will become worse if this succeeds.

Their analysis says: "Nuclear power would be cheapest, which could be produced at a cost of around 70 öre per kWh." Where do one get these figures, when no one else has shown how much it costs and the examples from the world show something completely different?

Their message is clearly aimed at blackening LKAB's investment in iron sponge and wind power as an energy carrier. I do not give much weight to the fact that they refer to having had contacts with steel producers who support their analysis. It is competitors to LKAB who have said this, and they want to stick to the old technology. As long as it is possible to make money from blast furnaces, it is clear that they do not want to see such a development.

Madam Speaker! If I fall ill, I do not go to economists and ask what treatment I should have to get well. I naturally go to a doctor who has researched this and has the knowledge.

Well, Madam Speaker, in order not to completely forget the core of this debate, I must mention something that would have been needed. The transition that is required would have been served by a broad and thus, over time, stable political anchoring. I am therefore strongly critical that the government has not invited conversations with the aim of reaching a cross-bloc agreement through a thoroughly worked-out holistic approach to the entire energy system. The political opposition would have been needed to give the energy policy the legitimacy and content that, unfortunately, is missing in the government's proposition.

We all agree that Sweden needs more electricity at reasonable prices - in the near term. Otherwise, the risk increases that industry, both domestic and foreign, will refrain from investing in the green transition. Having the target set solely on 2045 obviously means that important investments and power grid measures that are needed already now are instead pushed into the future.

For the industry to dare to invest in the transition, companies need to know that there is access to fossil-free – I would gladly say renewable – electricity already by 2030. With broad energy policy discussions, the goals that the government proposes would have been better grounded politically and could have met the expectations that exist among representatives for significant energy consumers, such as parts of the transport sector and industry, in a completely different way. The importance of interim targets over shorter time horizons would most likely have been considered in a better way.

I naturally stand behind all the reservations we have together with other parties, but I choose to move for approval only of reservation 4.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Birger Lahti, for the speech! I actually had not intended to take the floor. Birger Lahti is the best Left Party member I know. But now it became so specific in light of the anthology that has now been released, where a group of researchers from different perspectives have reviewed, questioned, and to some extent also condemned the Norrland steel investments - The Norrland steel investments is also the main title of the book that Birger Lahti highlights and which I myself had the privilege of commenting on when it was released at the Policy Institute in Malmö.

I would still like to problematize this somewhat from a Left Party perspective. What we are seeing right now are demands for enormous social investments. Probably hundreds of billions need to be invested in road construction, deep-sea ports, and not least the expansion of the power grid. This is not covered by the municipalities, but when it comes to, for example, Boden, Luleå, and Skellefteå, every municipality will need to incur debt of tens of billions to enable the establishments that are hoped for. In some cases, this happens exclusively through public actors; in other cases, it happens through private actors who are inflated by public funds. If in these cases – one example is H2 Green Steel – it does not go all the way, we then have public actors, not least municipalities, who have spent billions in the hope that something will be realized, but the profit will go to the private capital.

People speak of a strange venture capital model where the risk is largely taken by the public sector while the private sector can take the profit if any such arises. Does Birger Lahti not also see the risk, not least for his own home region, with these risky projects? If they do not become a reality, who then stands with large debts to the banks?

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Tobias Andersson, for the question!

We sometimes joke about an old story. There was an old pensioner who was driving on the road. He was driving on a main road. Then there was another driver who reversed out, and the pensioner happened to hit him. It is clear that it was not the pensioner's fault, because he was driving on a main road. The one who reversed out started apologizing, but the old man said:

- It is my fault!

- It can't be your fault, said the other. You were driving on the main road!

- Well, if I had stayed home, how the hell could you have collided with me then?

If we do nothing at all, it is impossible for it to go wrong. But I believe that Sweden faces a situation where we must dare to invest for the future. What will be in demand in a decade? I believe that group of consumers will demand the products that our industry wants to produce. It is something other than the American steel giants who rely on blast furnaces with coal. We see that they are still making money on it, but I believe that tomorrow's consumers will have completely different expectations out there. We must dare.

I can share Tobias Andersson's fears regarding the state taking a portion of the risk while it is private actors who will make the money. But I believe that one must at least share the risk, because society will obviously be a winner if this succeeds. I hope and believe that it will succeed. But if one only finds disadvantages, the investors will obviously also hesitate to invest if society does not believe in it.

Let me compare with Finland. If the entire Finnish people say that forestry is good, it always goes well. Then they have the backing of the whole society. That is what I would like Sweden to be able to emulate, that one has such trust.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Birger Lahti, for the answer! I am in no way trying to corner the member, but rather to balance the debate somewhat. I feel that there is reason for critical questions regarding the projects regardless of which political home one has. Perhaps this applies in particular to the one who is a member of the Left Party.

Now I do not have the book in front of me, but I want to remember that it highlights that it has cost Skellefteå municipality over 20 billion to enable the establishment of Northvolt. Similar sums we are looking at in Luleå, Boden and other municipalities in the area. It is an immense sum to take on as debt in a balance sheet and pay interest on for decades to come if one does not now bring in the tax revenues that are hoped for.

And even if the industries are established, it could become fly-in-fly-out, meaning that in the end, there won't be anyone paying tax in the municipality anyway. Then you are left with billions in loans at relatively high interest rates. You get no increased tax revenues. You have expanded preschools and elderly care. You have rebuilt your harbor and done other things, and you have indebted yourselves for generations to come in municipalities that do not have a fantastic financial situation from the start. It is an enormous risk these municipalities take to enable private capital to invest and get a return without having to take the risk themselves.

We can take up LKAB, which Birger Lahti highlighted in his speech. They are requesting 70 terawatt-hours by 2045-2050. I find it difficult to see that Birger Lahti and Vänsterpartiet would receive support in their constituencies in Norrbotten to install a corresponding 70 terawatt-hours of wind power. This means that around 11,000 wind turbines would need to be put in place in Norrbotten and surrounding areas. I find it difficult to see that one can get popular support for that, even as a Vänsterpartist.

My question is whether Birger Lahti shares these concerns and if he has any solution to this regarding the shared risks and, not least, that which concerns the power supply.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you again for the question, Tobias Andersson!

As long as we have a situation where we lack regional politics - there are now many examples of municipalities having started to oppose the establishment of, for example, mines or wind power, because the municipalities only see disadvantages with it - they will say no. But if we have a distribution, it is another matter. The Finns have a solution, and I think we should look at it.

Exactly how large the number of wind turbines would be, I will leave unsaid. But I am convinced that we would get a large expansion of wind power both on land and at sea. We should have a unified system where people see the advantages of allocating nature and the local environment to wind power. But that is not in place today, because this government chooses to brake the parts that would have provided effect, for example in this investigation.

The business world recently sought million-dollar sponsors for a predetermined negative review of the green industry to be conducted by the Skandinaviska Policyinstitutet, which they run. They are seeking sponsors for their aim to blacken this.

I believe that we could gain acceptance for the terawatt-hours that are required. I believe it is the only chance for the industry to survive. The industry is often portrayed as an industry with high emissions that is dirty. For them to be able to survive, they must be able to deliver what the world will demand tomorrow or in the future. I believe the only chance is that we make these investments.

Then we have this issue of getting people to come there. I agree that there is no gain if one has fly-in-fly-out. But I can take an example from the 1960s. Back then I worked with a friend – he has been a retiree for a long time now – who took a taxi to his uncle in Övertorneå several times a week. The housing was on site, and two large companies from Sweden were seeking people. It was Skega and Philips. We had prepared with housing, and the companies came there.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Electricity prices have fallen back to somewhat more normal prices over the past year. Prices vary, but it is the average price that is relevant for those who pay their electricity bill, and it is down to just over 50 öre. That is welcome. No one wants to have back the prices we had when Russia turned off the gas tap and prices spilled over from the continent, whether one pays them on the electricity bill or, as the government now plans, via the tax return or subsidies.

We need competitive prices on energy, whether it concerns electricity, fuels or heating. And we need to ensure that it is green, both for the climate and for competitiveness.

When the government has put all its eggs in the same energy basket, the Center Party sees a broad whole. We speak of the energy system when the government speaks of the electricity system. That is why I move for approval of reservation 2 in the report, and that is why we do not stand behind the new electricity policy goal that the government has presented. The fact is, they only speak about the electricity system.

People talk about fossil-free in the electricity system. It is a goal that we have already achieved in practice. On the other hand, there is much left to work on in the energy system, not least in the transport sector, where the government is increasing the use of the fossil.

When we now speak about fuels, it is impossible to avoid biogas, which is also addressed in this report. Biogas is still 5 kronor more expensive at the pump compared to before. This is due to an EU judgment that the government has chosen not to appeal and not to act on. Where is the government's commitment when it comes to pump prices there? Given that Tidögänget built the majority of their election campaign on talking about pump prices, it is surprising that no one has cared. But the Russian oil and gas may be more important than the Swedish biogas. Obviously, something is not right here.

The energy debate in Sweden often focuses on electricity production, as we have also heard in this debate. It is a corporate focus. Rarely is it about the individual household's situation or role. But we in Centerpartiet want to give more households more freedom, the freedom to choose for themselves and the opportunity to be part of the transition, to lower their own costs and to increase their own electricity production. That was why we pushed through the proposal on the green deduction so that more can install solar cells at home, have a battery storage, or have a charging station.

Now it is time to move forward. Our green check, which we presented in our budget, helps people invest their way out of high electricity bills and lowers the fuel costs for renewables. It can be used to install solar cells, improve energy efficiency, buy green fuel, or install battery storage that happens to have four rubber wheels and is called an electric car - just to mention a few things.

It should be easy to do the right thing, and the environmentally smart choice should always be the cheapest. This also strengthens the Swedish energy system and helps people who are struggling with electricity bills. At the same time, emissions are reduced. This also makes us less vulnerable, because it is much harder to knock out a million decentralized facilities than ten large ones. This is something the sitting government should consider in its eagerness for centralization, especially in the security policy situation we have.

Those who do not have their own roof can perhaps join forces with their neighbors. One can create energy together, improve energy efficiency and install a larger battery storage, but then the prerequisites must be in place.

Energy communities are an exception in Sweden. Regulations put spokes in the wheels, for example through the solar tax. Joining together and solving societal problems is something we are used to in Sweden. We have road associations. We have fishing conservation associations. We have fiber associations. I am completely convinced that energy associations are the next step, if the right conditions were provided. Let everyone who wants to join and contribute do so!

Those who have small margins and who cannot invest themselves out of their problems, we want to offer green state credit guarantees. Those who have become most stuck in the poverty trap are often those who have received high electricity bills, who have high fuel costs and who do not have money to invest themselves out of this. They need to be helped. This applies both on the electricity side and on the vehicle side. Electric cars and biogas cars were, at least until the government's shock increase of the tax, more expensive to purchase but cheaper to operate. It is therefore necessary to have an environmental car premium to lower the thresholds.

Greater freedom and protection against natural monopolies are also needed. When electricity grid companies and district heating companies can significantly raise prices, even to the extent that they are expelled from the common industry bodies that exist for precisely transparency, there is something seriously wrong with the system.

Consumer protection must be strengthened. At the same time, we need to strengthen the opportunities that exist for district heating and combined heat and power to compete on fair terms. A combined heat and power strategy is needed, which the Swedish Energy Agency has submitted proposals for, but which we have seen no sign of from the government.

We need to put an end to the court processes and appeals regarding the electricity grid. We need order and a truce between electricity grid companies and consumers. Here, the large companies need to take a special responsibility, both for reasonable pricing and for a rapid expansion of the electricity grid.

Here we also see that there is much more to do than just talk about production, which is done far too much in this chamber. Large-scale storage is needed. We need to focus significantly more on that. Regardless of which power system we advocate for, more storage is needed. It can be in hydropower dams. It can be via pumped power. It can be solar energy storage over the season. It can be hydrogen infrastructure, batteries, and much more. This is something that the government should focus on in the upcoming energy research bill.

The solutions are often about managing the freely flowing energy with low marginal costs. A much more strategic effort is also needed. When Volvo now launches electric cars that can support the electricity system, it can make an enormous difference. But the regulations are not in place. Taxation makes this impossible. Despite the fact that it could radically lower costs for consumers, the politics is not keeping up.

The green transition is an opportunity for Sweden. But the government seems to believe that the green transition is about green varnish that plays a smaller role - it is not so important to lead the way. Nothing could be more wrong.

It is clear that it is the Center Party that is driving the bourgeois policy in Swedish domestic politics right now, because it is the business sector that is pushing for this transition. Their customers want green products. If we do not support the business sector, they are not Sweden-sentimental - they will move. This is no empty threat.

Recently, as I have said earlier in this debate, a report from Västra Götalandsregionen arrived showing that Western Sweden risks losing 25,000 jobs if the electricity needs for 2030 are not met. Still, Ebba Busch has the nerve to say: No, offshore wind power cannot help. It is quite the opposite of what Svenska kraftnät, Energimyndigheten, Svenskt Näringsliv, Volvo, SCA, Holmen, and Vattenfall - yes, in short, everyone else - says. She refers to the laws of physics. But the physical laws at the ministry seem to be completely different from those in the rest of society, as the government seems to be the only ones who see that it is impossible to get more electricity into the system in a short time. That this has been solved in countries like Ireland, the Netherlands, and Spain seems to go completely unnoticed.

We have fantastic conditions in Sweden. With the right conditions, we can sell climate solutions to the whole world. Despite this, the Moderaterna say that we should settle for a European minimum level. What they do not seem to understand is that the climate export is then turned into import and that the jobs move.

A strong energy and climate policy is also a strong business policy. What is demanded most of all is that the needs in the near term should be met with security, stability, and long-term perspective in the decisions. Where the policy should have the easiest time delivering, the government fails completely. Today's bill is unfortunately a prime example.

Some stability in the decisions over time does not seem interesting. Some serious conversations have not been held. An invitation was extended to a glorified coffee break and a referral process without any possibility to influence. We delivered concrete proposals. We were asked to provide such. We delivered both orally and in writing. Still, they did not care.

Perhaps the most interesting thing is that both Centerpartiet and Miljöpartiet submitted proposals that we perhaps should also have a target for efficiency by 2030. Despite the Moderaternes having said several times that it is efficiency that counts and not energy over the year, that it would even be completely irrelevant, it is the only thing the government submits a target for energy over the year. This is simply unprofessional.

Meeting the needs in the near term, they simply do not care about. There are no short-term goals, despite the industry screaming for it. As recently as two days ago, there were debate articles from heavy industry representatives saying that this is absolutely necessary, that the government's focus on 2045 is too far away, and that it is not possible to invest based on this.

Exactly the same reasoning for the climate goals. It is not so strange because the needs we have in the short term and, above all, the solutions available do not align with the government's policy. Then one closes one's eyes. This is deeply harmful for Sweden. It goes far beyond this chamber, and I am worried.

One wants to establish that we shall have a delivery security goal, but one cannot specify what it means in practice. This is what one wants without knowing what it costs, without having any analyses, and without knowing how it is to be achieved. It is not serious. The impact assessment for the bill is a joke.

Finally, the energy efficiency target is being abolished despite the fact that we know that every fifth to seventh kilowatt-hour is wasted - completely unnecessarily. It would be profitable to improve efficiency here. Taking advantage of that potential would quickly free up both energy, power, and capacity in the grid. It would buy us time for other measures. Furthermore, it would be profitable.

The question one must ask is: Does the government want to delay and postpone? How else are we to interpret this? The investors are queuing to build. Let them do it! There are proposals for wind farms on the government's desk. Admittedly, there were a couple on the previous government's desk as well, but it made decisions when the preparation was complete. Now the government makes no decisions.

In Skåne, we have parks, as Louise from the Liberals pointed out, for which one is ready to make investment decisions. But no notifications are received from the government. This would in one fell swoop make an enormous difference for the electricity situation in Skåne, where one also wants to invest in large battery storage in order to be able to level out production over time. We also know that offshore wind power delivers electricity 95 percent of the time. It is a form of new base load.

The government must sharpen itself here. The defense must adapt, as has been done in other countries. Our allies in Nato manage this perfectly well. Why doesn't the Swedish defense do it? When I visit Saab, they say: We have no problems with wind power and our radar installations. We filter that out. The worst that can happen is that someone hides behind the wind turbine. But then they cannot move, because we see them as soon as they move from there!

Proposals for solar parks are lying in abundance on the county administrative board's desk. 12 terawatt-hours - that is, more than what two nuclear reactors produce.

It is clear that we need to manage people's will to transition even locally, but then let the property tax go back to the municipalities. Let neighbors get to share in the values that are created! It should, of course, be just as attractive to have a wind farm in one's municipality as a battery factory.

Madam Speaker! We have long pushed for shortened permit processes. There is usually a lot of talk about it in this chamber. The investigations that were commissioned during the previous government, I have personally driven forward. The government also says it wants to shorten the lead times. A good start would have been to begin with its own department.

The debacle regarding the pause on hydropower is a chapter in itself. The government has failed to communicate a single proposal for over a year. The only thing it has managed to do is make the hydropower industry so anxious that the Hydropower Environmental Fund has been halted. The environmental movement is furious that nothing is happening at all, and the commission will soon initiate a violation case against Sweden. And now we are to wait another year.

There is a government bill on reduced bureaucracy that the government has just submitted. It took two years before the completed investigation was submitted. Both offshore wind farms and proposals regarding compensations are lying and gathering dust. One wonders if the government is deliberately prepared to let large industrial projects fall because they are not delivering energy in the near term. Even the minister himself has said that they expect this to happen.

We need strategies. We need a strategy for hydrogen, for bioeconomy, for biogas and for combined heat and power. All of these exist as finished agency products, but nothing is happening. Where is the commitment from the government?

Finally, Madam Speaker: When the government rushes through legislation regarding visitation zones because it is so urgent to handle gang crime, it seems to think that energy, climate, and Swedish competitiveness can wait - preferably until the next mandate period. This is harmful. It is harmful for the climate, for the citizens' health, for the household budgets, and for the Swedish companies.

I am ready, every day of the week, to sit down and resolve the issues together with you. I believe we could do it during a coffee break, almost. It does not need to be any protracted negotiations if one actually wants to reach an agreement. But there does not seem to be any interest in that.

We have a duty to solve this together. The Centre Party has done it before, and we can do it many times more. We are ready to come to the negotiating table. The question is whether the government is. It was needed - for the households, for the companies, for the climate and for Sweden's best.

In this speech, Birger Lahti (V) agreed.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Climate policy is energy policy, our current Prime Minister used to say. With that starting point, it is easy to evaluate the government's energy policy. It is a total failure.

Emissions are increasing sharply starting this year due to this government's policy. When Miljöpartiet sat in government, emissions decreased every year. Now, instead, they are increasing sharply. For the first time in 20 years or more, we have a government that deliberately and actively makes decisions that lead to a sharp increase in emissions of climate-damaging gases.

Unfortunately, the situation in the energy sector does not look any better. During the previous conservative government, Sweden imported electricity, including coal power from Germany and Poland. But thanks to a successful green policy with a record-fast expansion of power production, Sweden instead had Europe's largest surplus of electricity with 33 terawatt-hours in 2022. It is a very good starting point for the extensive electrification that the industry and the transport sector face. As I mentioned earlier, this has been done while Sweden is the world's best country when it comes to security of supply within the electricity system.

Now the forecasts instead show that the investment rate is decreasing due to the policy pursued by this government, when it should instead need to increase. With this conservative government's backward-looking culture war within energy policy, Sweden is heading towards an electricity shortage again if nothing is done, just like the last time the right ruled. Such a failure would severely hinder Sweden from reaching our climate goals, and it would truly damage Swedish business.

Industry and climate researchers are in agreement: Sweden needs to focus on delivering large amounts of fossil-free electricity quickly, cheaply, and in an environmentally friendly manner.

There has been a great deal of discussion about what the industry demands. In speeches on energy goals, as recently as Monday, a very clear message was delivered by Hitachi Energy, Ovako, H2 Green Steel, Nordion Energi, and SCA. I thought I would read out a few sentences from their very readable debate article: An all-too one-sided focus on nuclear power is problematic. The electricity demand over the next ten years and a political focus on 2045 is an equation that does not add up. The government's intention to meet a doubled electricity demand by 2045 needs to be supplemented with a goal in the shorter term. At stake is Sweden's competitiveness as an industrial nation. We call for political leadership that focuses on an expanded electricity production and a modern power grid that provides 10 terawatt-hours of clean and cheap electricity every year until 2035.

What can provide a necessary supplement of electricity sufficiently quickly and at competitive prices is wind power. The wind power projects that are currently awaiting permits and investment decisions can, in a cautious assessment, provide a supplement of 140 terawatt-hours of fossil-free electricity production by 2035.

In the energy policy debate, it is falsely claimed that Sweden is on its way to having a larger share of weather-dependent electricity production than the electricity system can handle. Well-founded studies and practical examples from, among others, Portugal and Ireland show that rapid and large-scale expansion of wind and solar power can provide robust electricity systems and competitive prices.

Most of the new industrial initiatives are flexible in their electricity use, among other things through the production and storage of hydrogen, which also contributes to the robustness of the electricity and energy system. The investments will take place in those places in the world where clean and competitively priced electricity is offered sufficiently quickly. It is a quite clear message from very heavy actors.

When this bill was out for consultation, the refrain was the same. Heavy consultation bodies, including among others Energiföretagen, Energimyndigheten, SKR and Svenskt Näringsliv, but also for example Naturskyddsföreningen, call for exactly what Miljöpartiet has pointed out: a planning goal even in the shorter term than to 2045.

For me, it is therefore incomprehensible why the government does not listen to the assessment of both the business community and the authorities and present planning goals for electricity for 2030 and 2035. We have recorded this from virtually all opposition parties during a glorified coffee break, as Rickard called it.

When one adds together the industry's and the authorities' assessment of how electricity consumption may increase as a result of electrification within industry and transport, we see that it is rather a matter of a doubling by 2035 than by 2045. For the industry to dare to invest in the transition, the companies need to know that there is access to competitive green electricity already in 2030. Otherwise, the risk is imminent that the companies will not dare to invest in Sweden, and then the investments will end up in other countries. This is already starting to happen.

Therefore, Miljöpartiet proposes the following planning goals to make more electricity available by 2030 and 2035.

We want a goal of 100 terawatt-hours by 2030 and an additional 50 terawatt-hours by 2035. We do this through both new electricity production and energy efficiency.

Let me begin with electricity production. Svensk Vindenergi assesses that approximately 45 terawatt-hours of new wind power can be added by 2030 and that an additional 100 can be added between 2030 and 2035.

Svensk Solenergi assesses that it is possible with 30 terawatt-hours of solar power already by 2030. According to the grid companies, there are applications for connection for a corresponding 50 terawatt-hours of solar power already today. It is not unreasonable.

The second part is energy efficiency. It is by far the cheapest and fastest way to produce more electricity or make more electricity available. With more efficient use, the electricity we already produce will suffice for more. The Swedish Energy Agency assesses that it is possible to free up up to 25 terawatt-hours of electricity by 2030 solely through initiatives for more efficient and flexible use. Nevertheless, the government has practically no policy for energy efficiency. They want to review the goal. That is how far they have come so far.

An electricity system with very variable energy obviously needs to be balanced, and this has been discussed a lot. Therefore, Miljöpartiet sees a need for a goal, not just for energy but also for capacity and green base load. It is a goal that the government completely lacks. There is nothing about capacity in the government's proposition, despite the fact that that discussion has been intense in recent years.

For economic and time-related reasons, the absolute majority of new electricity production in Sweden until 2030, perhaps all, likely also thereafter, will come from renewable energy sources such as wind power and solar energy. The most common follow-up question is, of course, what we do when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. In that case, we have said that we want a goal for green baseload power. Already today, it is the renewable that is the backbone of the controllable power, for example, stored energy in the form of water. Our water reservoirs regulate the electricity system to a large extent. The renewable energy system that we want to build rests on that foundation.

Green base load includes a combination of renewable production that is not weather-dependent as well as storage and technologies for system flexibility. Specifically, it is about increased capacity in hydropower, more flexibility and capacity from combined heat and power, energy storage in the form of hydrogen, peak power, heat storage, and also gas turbines powered by renewable fuels. It is also about demand flexibility through, for example, smart control of electric vehicle charging and heat pumps. The potential is great. We want a goal of 10 gigawatts of green base load by 2030, which could balance a large incoming amount of renewable energy.

Let me mention some figures. Hydropower has a potential for power increase of perhaps 3 gigawatts, and combined heat and power 1.5 gigawatts. Demand flexibility including hydrogen gives 8 gigawatts by 2030, according to our authorities. The battery forecasts say 6-10 gigawatts by 2030. One can also look at SVK's latest long-term market analysis. If one includes the technologies, the risk of power shortage is 0 with a large amount of renewable energy.

The government proposes a security of supply goal for the electricity system, but it completely misses that the electricity system is only one part of Sweden's energy system. To achieve the climate transition, industrial competitiveness, and an adaptation of the energy system for a new security policy situation, a significantly broader approach is needed. Therefore, we propose a goal for energy security.

In its referral response to the government's memorandum "Förslag om nya energipolitiska mål", the Armed Forces points out that large investments in electricity and energy preparedness are required.

Today, Sweden is heavily dependent on energy imports. All fossil energy is imported, and this constitutes a serious vulnerability for Sweden. We have already seen how Europe's deep dependence on Russian energy supply has seriously worsened Europe's security. Putin's energy war against Europe has shown that the transition from fossil to renewable is urgent, even from a purely security perspective.

In this context, it is a disgrace that Sweden still imports Russian fossil gas in large quantities, directly against the Riksdag's explicit decision. We have already received reports from Ukraine. They have had to endure many attacks on their energy system, and the equivalent of the CEO of Svenska kraftnät in Ukraine has said that if they were to redesign their energy system to become less vulnerable, they would have many small distributed production units, just as we would have with a renewable energy system.

There is an example where Russia sent a missile into a solar farm. The missile likely cost significantly more than the small portion that it managed to destroy, and it was then back up quickly and could produce electricity. We have heard reports about how electric cars are what works because all fuel is sent to the front and used in tanks. In this context, energy communities where we become more self-sufficient and can run operations even on a smaller scale would not only be good for the energy system but also for our security.

We also need to better prioritize what we transition first. All our food production is today dependent on imported fossil energy. To get food on the table, we are dependent on fossil energy. Here we need to prioritize. There is an investigation on the path towards fossil-independent agriculture. We should prioritize transitioning work machinery, transport, and such things that are necessary to get food on the table.

The government also writes beautiful words about biogas in the bill, but they absolutely do not set any concrete goals. They have not even managed to remove the biogas tax that exists today. Therefore, we propose a planning goal of 10 terawatt by 2030. This is also completely in line with what the industry is requesting. All the proposals have been recorded in the conversations we have had, but they have not been taken into account. I want to emphasize that.

In summary, Madam Speaker, we have a government that is not delivering what the climate or the business community needs and which continues to import fossil energy from Russia. I believe that Sweden deserves better.

We naturally stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservations 7 and 27.

(Applause)

In this speech, Jacob Risberg (MP) agreed.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! Discussing energy policy with the Green Party and its supporter, the Centre Party, is a bit like discussing religion with an atheist.

Let me remind Linus Lakso that we took over a country and a power system in decay. Due to eight years with an Environment Party-led government, Sweden had sky-high electricity prices and was close to having to start shutting down parts of electricity area 4. Furthermore, the Environment Party had started up the oil-fired Karlshamn plant and operated it at full capacity. It was probably the only industry with full production during that time.

My first question to Linus Lakso is where in the world there is a power system that you want with only weather-dependent power sources. Which country has such a power system? I can say that no country has it, primarily because it does not work. If one has such a power system, one cannot have any form of industry, welfare, or growth. Give me an example of a country that has a power system with only weather-dependent power sources as Miljöpartiet demands!

I also want to ask if Linus Lakso believes that Sweden should have lower electricity prices than other countries. The Green Party usually says that we must get used to higher electricity prices in Sweden. But we will need to maintain one of our few economic competitive advantages, namely lower electricity prices in Sweden than in other countries.

This with storage and flexibility sounds great. The problem is just that what the Miljöpartiet means by this is rationing. One should ration the electricity for our households and our industry. But one does not build welfare and a modern industrial country in this way.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! I think it is completely unserious of Mats Green to stand here and utter direct falsehoods. What he claims about the electricity system and the Green Party's policy is not true. It is unfortunate when one cannot listen to each other and address arguments on their merits. It is one thing to have different opinions about things, and I am happy to have a serious debate about Sweden's energy system. I am, after all, an energy engineer by training and have worked with energy issues for 15 years, so I know quite well what I am talking about. I would appreciate it if we could have a serious debate on how we are to deliver the electricity needed for the climate transition. What one throws out must, nevertheless, be based on some kind of reasonableness.

We absolutely do not want a system with only weather-dependent energy. I have just listed five technologies that are renewable and dispatchable. You must listen to what your opponents say, otherwise it becomes completely meaningless to have a debate.

What I am presenting are figures from reports and heavy hitters, not least heavy industrial companies. Some of Sweden's heaviest companies write that it is incorrectly claimed in the energy policy debate that Sweden is on its way to having a larger share of weather-dependent electricity production than the electricity system can handle. But these facts just slide off Mats Green. Then it becomes very difficult to conduct a serious debate.

In this speech, Jacob Risberg (MP) agreed.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! What Linus Lakso is actually saying is that he does not want to stand here and be tormented with any kind of factual knowledge. He says that he has no problems whatsoever with predictable power and that he does not just want weather-dependent power. The problem is only that half of the types of power that Linus Lakso listed in his speech and which could contribute a lot to the power system, Miljöpartiet has done its best to phase out. Nuclear power has been shut down, district heating has been taxed away, and you were about to tear out the hydropower. It is very good if you have come to an insight. But you have, with surgical precision, set your sights on the predictable, stable, and clean types of power in Sweden, and therefore we have the problems we have with our power system.

Again: Which country in the world has the power system that Miljöpartiet demands and has managed to make it work? There is no example of this.

Does Linus Lakso believe that Sweden must have lower electricity prices than all other countries? I believe so, because I want Sweden to continue to be a successful industrial and welfare country.

Storage and flexibility sound great, and none of us are against it. The problem is that the Green Party means rationing. The storage capacity you are talking about does not exist today. The technology and capacity are not there. Svenska kraftnät states that large-scale long-term energy storage is totally unrealistic. We must have proven technology in our power system, not pure fantasies.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! The claims that Mats Green is making are pure fantasies. It is not possible to have a system with only weather-dependent power, and I have just described all the technologies that can balance a system. No, they do not exist today, but why do you think the bill is called Long-term direction of energy policy? The nuclear power you want does not exist either. Today, Sweden has six reactors. You want ten more, and they obviously do not exist. It becomes completely unserious to have a debate where we cannot talk about the same thing.

I mentioned specific figures for four or five different technologies and energy sources that are renewable and dispatchable. Let us look at energy prices. After eight years with Miljöpartiet in government, Sweden had Europe's lowest electricity prices, the most export of environmentally friendly electricity, the lowest use of fossil energy, and the highest use of renewable energy. According to Svenska kraftnät, we also had the most secure electricity system in the world. But this keeps the Moderaterna and Mats Green busy dismantling for purely ideological reasons. It is you who are responsible for how you will deliver dispatchable power and a sufficient amount of energy for the climate transition, because that is what this is about.

You have no further remarks, but you are welcome to tell us at the opportunity whether you believe in the IPCC's forecasts or not. Facts seem to be something you, Mats Green, take quite lightly.

(Applause)

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

ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN

Let me remind you that in the debate we address each other by first and last names and do not use "you" (du).

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thought I would try to understand how the Green Party reasons. Linus Lakso is clear that by 2030, that is in five and a half years, they want 100 terawatt-hours of new electricity production in Sweden. This is to be compared with the approximately 170 terawatt-hours we have today and which have been built up over decades. This seems quite unlikely, especially as the Green Party and the Centre Party are pushing for a massive expansion of wind power.

Madam Speaker! Let me break it down a bit. In 2023, all wind turbines in Sweden, approximately 5,500 units, produced 34 terawatt-hours over a period of one year. Even if 5,000 slightly larger and more efficient wind turbines could produce 33 terawatt-hours, it still involves 15,000 new turbines if we are to get 100 new terawatt-hours from wind power.

I know that other things are raised from Linus Laksos' side, but if we stick to what is usually pushed for from the left wing, it is precisely wind power. We are talking about 15,000 wind turbines to be built in five and a half years, to be put into relation to the 5,500 that exist today and which have been built over decades.

We can look at how many were built in 2023. It was 243 units. That would mean that we would need to build at a rate that is 44 times faster than what we built in 2023 to meet the electricity production that Linus Lakso wants to promise the voters by 2030.

Madam Speaker! I consider this to be utterly impossible and directly ridiculous to propose.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Where should one begin? Tobias Andersson seems to have completely missed the technological development - actually, completely, but above all regarding wind power.

What is happening with wind power is, above all, that the wind turbines are becoming larger. We have an energy minister who likes to talk about the laws of physics, so we can do this. If you increase the rotor blade by one meter, the swept area increases by the square. If you increase the height of the tower, it goes higher and gets higher wind speeds. For every meter per second that the wind speed increases, the energy content increases by the cube, i.e., raised to the power of three. This means that you get an extremely large energy yield from building a large wind turbine compared to a smaller wind turbine.

It is this development that has made wind power now the absolute cheapest energy source to expand, just as I mentioned that many heavy industrial actors point out. This means that with the Swedish Energy Agency's forecasts, we can produce 100 terawatt-hours of electricity from wind energy with approximately 6,000 wind turbines, if one accounts for them becoming larger. It would take up approximately 1.5 percent of Sweden's area.

I have personally visited many different places where wind power has been built. Tobias Andersson has been involved in the acceptance of wind power. It can vary very much, but a very important prerequisite is that one feels that one has received something in return. Where the wind power companies have given a reasonable community fund or have been able to build a community center, a sports hall, or something similar, there people think that the wind power has been a fantastic addition to the community.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Now I thought I was being kind with the mathematics. I do not believe that neither I nor Linus Lakso imagine that every single wind turbine built in the future will be the very largest and the very widest. I believe it is quite unlikely to believe that one will receive local acceptance for that, not least against the background that Miljöpartiet is one of the parties that, at the municipal level, says no to the most wind farms, especially in smaller municipalities. Miljöpartiet is the party that is most negative towards wind power establishment in municipalities with under 50,000 inhabitants. Regardless of Miljöpartiet's municipal representatives who do not want wind turbines in their municipalities, there are many others who belong to other parties who definitely do not want it.

Let us take the figure of 6,000 wind turbines that Linus Lakso mentions for the 100 terawatt-hours that Linus Lakso wants by 2030. I do not believe, moreover, that it will meet the total need; significantly more would be needed. Let us still take the member's figure of 6,000. It does not change the fact that 243 were built last year. If we were to maintain that pace, even though they are becoming larger and further apart and would therefore likely take longer to build, we would still only have built about 1,000 by 2030. Then five-sixths of the installations that Linus Lakso believes he can conjure up by 2030 are missing.

Once again, Madam Speaker: This is not serious. It is not serious to believe that it is even technically possible to build so much and that it would even be feasible. We see long lead times for offshore wind power, not least. It is not likely that we will even solve the input goods or that we will solve the local acceptance. It is also not likely that one solves the functions of the electricity system with so much wind power, yet Miljöpartiet claims to believe in and push for 100 terawatt-hours of new electricity production by 2030. It is and remains unserious, Madam Speaker.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! I note that Tobias Andersson continues to have difficulty getting the figures right. We have somewhere around 30 or 33 terawatt-hours, and what I clearly mentioned in my speech was that Svensk Vindenergi assesses that an additional 45 terawatt-hours of new wind could be added by 2030. We have had an expansion of rather somewhere around 5 to 8 terawatt-hours per year.

The problem is that Tobias Andersson starts from the policy that hinders the expansion of wind power and starts from that type of forecasts.

The Sweden Democrats say no in 100 percent of cases across the country, and the least bad Tidö party today, which is the Liberals, says no in 70 percent of cases. The Green Party is, contrary to what Tobias Andersson incorrectly claims, the party that, together with the Center Party, depending on how one measures, the last year or the last two years, is the party that says yes in the most cases to new wind power.

One must also remember that politics is needed to enable this; that is quite obvious. Much I have already spoken about: We need a goal for effect, and we need incentives to want wind power. It is central that one gets something back. That is something we have pushed for for ten to fifteen years.

Then Tobias Andersson does not seem to quite understand himself what is being proposed in this bill. It is a planning goal that is being proposed, and a planning goal means that our authorities and the policy shall enable a certain level of expansion. It does not mean that it will happen. It means that if the demand will exist from the industry, which the forecasts still point to, it shall be possible to build that much. I am a bit surprised that Tobias Andersson seems to have missed that completely.

In this speech, Jacob Risberg (MP) agreed.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 29 May.)

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