Implementation of the electricity market directive regarding the delivery of electricity and aggregation services

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal for a decision.

Due to the large expansion of weather-dependent energy types such as wind and solar power, the energy system's requirements for flexibility increase. Weather-dependent energy sources cannot regulate their production according to demand, which means that flexible solutions are required instead. This in turn means that consumers are forced to adapt their consumption to the production.

This large variation between supply and demand also drives forward new technical solutions, which will affect the electricity system as a whole. To ensure that the balance in the system can be maintained upon the introduction of new technologies, changes in today's regulatory framework are required. And this proposal is an important step to manage the recent years' development of the electricity system and who is responsible for what.

The proposal that we are now about to make a decision on involves a number of steps being taken to clarify the responsibility between the system operator, the balancing authority, the aggregator, as well as electricity suppliers and electricity consumers. That the Social Democrats chose to overlook the question of who is responsible and who pays for what shows how lightly they have taken the energy issue. The proposal also contains a positive reinforcement of the electricity consumers' rights and their opportunity to choose contracts with hourly prices.

Madam Speaker! Facilitating for a consumer to control their own consumption and thereby reduce their costs is positive. But in the end, it is not the Swedish citizens or the Swedish companies who should bear the burden of a poorly functioning electricity system. That entire industries are forced to stand still and sell or save electricity is not positive in the long run. It will damage Sweden as an industrial nation, not to mention our prosperity.

Madam Speaker! With the new government, we see a welcome change in Swedish energy policy. It is no longer fine words that are prioritized, but a stable energy infrastructure. This proposal is a step to handle a recently emerged situation. This, together with the government mandate on strengthened security of supply in the energy sector and the investment in stable, reliable, predictable, and climate-smart nuclear power, means that we are moving again towards the electricity system required for an industrial nation and a future prosperity for those of us who live, work, and operate in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! One may, however, wonder why this decision is being made only now, three years after the directive was introduced in the EU and after the EU initiated an infringement proceedings against Sweden. The answer can be found with the previous government.

The Social Democratic government did not only dismantle large parts of Sweden's base load and replace it with weather-dependent power, which created large differences between supply and demand, but it also succeeded in neglecting the regulatory framework as new technical solutions emerged in the electricity market.

Madam Speaker! Even the EU realized that the regulatory framework must be updated to handle this new situation. Unfortunately, the previous government with the Social Democrats and their supporting parties did not do so, and they let the EU directive sit in the desk drawer.

On an annual basis, Swedish electricity production is far more than sufficient. But producing electricity and sending it outside the country's borders yields little, as it often coincides with electricity exports in other countries and provides very little value to the Swedish citizen.

Electricity is a precious commodity. But it is even better if it is used to power our industry, refine products and thereby drive our prosperity. For this, it is not only required to have annual production of electricity, but primarily that the available power covers the need in every given second.

It was from this thought that the entire Swedish energy system was built 60 years ago. Stable power was to be available near the industry and the citizens. It was no coincidence that the electricity system functioned. It was a clear plan that included where, when, and how it was to look.

The Social Democrats lived for a long time on old, stable energy systems that were once built. But through ignorance and by unleashing the Green Party regarding our fundamental pillars in the energy infrastructure, we now stand in the most vulnerable situation since the oil crisis of the 70s.

Madam Speaker! Those who have worked so intensively to put us in this situation show very little interest in addressing the problems. They claim that nuclear power should not be built "because it takes too long." It also takes a long time to build a hospital. But no sensible person would claim that is a reason not to do it. The same applies to nuclear power. We do it because it is needed, because even though it takes time to build, electricity is also needed in the future, and because we know that it will work.

Madam Speaker! This government cooperation - the Tidö parties - is now reshaping energy policy to rebuild a functioning, stable, and clean energy system. The parties in the government cooperation agree on energy policy in general and on the importance of new nuclear power in particular, in contrast to the government bases of the two previous terms. It provides decisiveness, stability, and long-term perspective. It was needed, and it is good for Sweden. It will take many years - one must be honest about that - but if we do not start today, we merely push the problems forward to another day.

(Applause)

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

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! It is a recurring problem that the Swedish government wants to over-implement EU directives, which often tends to lead to diminished competitiveness for Swedish companies. Among other things, it often leads to an unjustified and increasing regulatory burden and further unnecessary administration.

If Sweden is to constantly impose higher and unjustified regulatory requirements on Swedish companies than other EU countries, it means that the Swedish business sector will successively receive worse conditions than its competitors in Europe. These words are not mine, even though I can sign off on them. It was the Moderaterna who wrote this and delivered it here in the Riksdag last year. Nevertheless, the government is now presenting a bill that over-implements an EU directive, to the detriment of Swedish competitiveness and to increased costs - completely unnecessarily.

My question to Mats Green and the Moderaterna is therefore: Why have you chosen to burden the aggregators not only with the imbalances they create, which is entirely reasonable and what is stated in the EU directive, but with all the impact that these can have in the entire system? You do this despite the fact that it would make many of these functions impossible and furthermore create extremely high barriers to entry – and despite the fact that the aggregator services are very profitable in a socio-economic sense and, I would say, completely crucial for us to manage the future as well as maintain and strengthen our competitiveness.

Why have you chosen to over-implement the EU directive, the Moderates?

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Rickard Nordin for the question.

No, we have not over-implemented anything. We are in complete agreement that we must get rid of the folly that exists in particular in Sweden, namely over-implementing – and furthermore quite grossly misinterpreting – EU directives. We could have a long discussion here about the Water Framework Directive and the displacements that are currently taking place regarding small-scale hydropower in southern Sweden. I note that Centerpartiet allowed this to happen during the previous government, but I hope that improvements are now being made.

When it comes to the question about aggregators that Rickard Nordin poses here today, it is not an over-implementation based on this EU directive. It is instead about guarding a stable and secure electricity system that is also based on technology neutrality. It therefore has nothing to do with the EU directive, but rather it is about the fact that we need to guard a functioning electricity system where we obviously favor the predictable, stable power. It is, after all, that which the entire power system is built upon – and it is not a debate point from my side, but a statement of a technical fact, Madam Speaker.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I believe that Mats Green should read the bill and the EU directive once more, because in the EU directive it is extremely clear: It is written verbatim that aggregator services shall be responsible for the imbalances they create. But in the government's bill, it states that they shall be burdened with all the impact they create. These are two completely different things. The claim that one is not over-implementing when they are verbatim different things—when one concept significantly broadens the whole—is simply not true.

Mats Green wants to talk about hydropower, which we are very happy to talk about, or dispatchable power, nuclear power and so on, but that is something completely different. There, they are trying to mix the cards. My question is: Why has the government chosen to broaden the concept when it comes to the aggregator services, even though from the Moderates' side it is so nicely said that we should not over-implement EU directives - because it costs extra for Swedish companies?

This is a prime example of over-implementation where one obviously does not know what they are doing. It will cause large socio-economic costs and increase the entry barriers for smaller companies when it is made harder to utilize this, which is socio-economically profitable. In the end, it hits the consumers. It hits Swedish households, who will get higher electricity prices, and it hits Swedish companies, which get poorer competitiveness. It is a prime example of what the Moderaterna said as recently as a year ago they were working against. Still, one stands here and defends it.

Why do the Moderates choose to over-implement so literally and so clearly?

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! I note that we may disagree on whether this is an over-implementation or not. I maintain that it is not.

Again: This is about guarding what is A and O technically in a well-functioning power system, namely predictable, stable and weather-independent power. Then, the weather-dependent power is naturally crucial for the energy system, but technically it still stands or falls on having a stable, predictable power to be able to guard the frequency stability.

Then we can certainly stand here and discuss over-implementation, and I can state that the government has appointed an implementation council to remedy the flaw that - yes, I admit - is very widespread in Sweden. But there one should probably have greater confidence in this government and our ambitions, especially against the background of the Center Party's lack of problematization of this during the previous government and the Center Party's involvement in a number of major issues where there has definitely occurred both an over-implementation and a misinterpretation of EU directives. Sweden is in a corner of its own when it comes to both application and implementation.

I welcome the support of the Centre Party and the positions that the Centre Party has when we are to have discussions about over-implementation within almost all areas of society in Sweden.

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

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! When I listened to Mats Green's contribution, I thought that one could reflect on the falsification of history, but that was not why I requested the floor.

Mats Green and his party do not like over-implementation of rules and conditions, which we heard in the previous exchange of remarks. We have also heard it countless times from the speaker's chairs here in the Riksdag. But in this specific report, the government proposes an over-implementation. This concerns the definition of imbalance, which is far too broad as it appears in the bill - especially for the one who provides the aggregator service.

With this broad interpretation, the economic responsibility mentioned in the EU regulation becomes far too extensive and an obstacle to market access for aggregated demand flexibility. It will not promote new actors but will only benefit existing electricity production. In the long run, this leads to diminished competition and can lead to more expensive electricity for consumers.

You usually think that competition is good, Mats Green - but not here. Why?

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! We fully applaud competition in all areas, and I also welcome the Social Democrats to that position. However, I must say that we may not quite agree on whether this constitutes an over-implementation or not. I contend that it does not.

Part of what is being implemented here – or everything – is very much in line with the new energy policy that the government basis has now launched. It improves the conditions for all fossil-free types of power, from nuclear power to others. But, again: The focus is naturally on achieving predictability and a secure energy system. That one would disadvantage new actors who are not on the market and other types of energy is directly incorrect. We stand guard to ensure that the conditions are improved for all fossil-free powers, from nuclear power to wind power and solar power, and that work has only just begun, Madam Speaker.

Then there is a difference - just because one says that something is an over-implementation, it is not that, Madam Speaker. I feel that is a bit where we end up in that discussion, both with the Center Party and with the Social Democrats.

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

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! There is a difference when one sits in government; then one must take responsibility for the proposals that are put forward, Mats Green. It is important.

You say that you favor all fossil-free power sources. This is not at all about power sources, but it is about trading with flexibility. This has nothing to do with the power sources, but it is an over-implementation when it comes to the words "imbalance" and "balance". What will this mean for the aggregators? It will mean that electricity will become more expensive for you and me, because this is not being done in the right way.

I therefore continue to ask the question: Why do you want to over-implement this proposal, Mats Green? I do not understand that, given the discussion about not over-implementing that we have had in the speaker's chairs here in the Riksdag countless times. The committee you have appointed has obviously not started working, because then the proposal would not look the way it does. Why do you want to over-implement just this bill?

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! Monica Haider says that there is a difference when one sits in the government, and that is absolutely true. There is a difference between sitting in the opposition and sitting in the government. There is also a difference between different governments. This government wants to do things – good things – especially when it comes to the energy system and not just talk or take on the most fundamental parts of a previously well-functioning Swedish energy system. The work, as has been said, has only just begun.

One could call this an over-implementation of the EU directive, but I don't quite buy that picture. This is instead part of the reforming of the common European energy market.

This was presented in 2019. Then the previous government delayed in doing anything; they let it sit in the desk drawer.

If one is so critical of this coming out just now, why did one not implement it oneself in the way it is claimed it should be implemented? One said nothing and did nothing. It would be interesting to have this answered. One had at least three years. Why did one do nothing then?

We have taken hold of this. We are also taking hold of all other parts of the now rather dysfunctional Swedish energy system.

We need to discuss once again how we get more power into the systems and whether there is broad agreement on the government's new energy policy goals for Sweden, namely that Sweden shall strive for a fossil-free energy system instead of a renewable one.

It will be interesting to see if a response comes from Monica Haider on how the Social Democrats stand on this. Are they prepared to vote for the government's proposal on a new energy policy goal regarding a fossil-free energy system, or will they – together with the Green Party and the Left Party – stick to the old goal? That will be a later question in the debate.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today we are talking about aggregation. It is one of my favorite topics, and I am very happy that we get the chance to talk about it. This is something that makes it possible for households, villa owners, housing cooperatives and so on to save money and also earn money by combining small loads and selling them, through an aggregator, on markets that already exist. It is super smart.

System services such as these are something that is completely necessary in all energy systems that exist today and that are being continuously developed - thank goodness - so that we get balance and security in our system.

I agree with previous speakers - it is actually the case that the government chooses to implement this directive in a way that lays a wet blanket over the new innovative services that to some extent - a little bit - already exist but which are needed to a much greater extent to complement production and energy efficiency both locally and regionally.

I heard the member say that we should stand guard over the system. "Stand guard" is often said. Furthermore, I heard about actors that do not even exist. This gives even greater reason to enable and not over-implement this legislation; I agree with the previous speakers. Why is it that the Moderaterna do not want to increase system stability by enabling more to offer system services, for example through aggregation?

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! I felt that that was a bit of my point. It is we who want to increase system services and ensure that one gets paid for them. That is also why we have kicked off a comprehensive reforming of the entire energy market. That was my point.

I must naturally ask Marielle Lahti: Why did Miljöpartiet not implement this in a different way? It is claimed - incorrectly - that this is an over-implementation. Why was this not done during her time in a government position? Why was it not addressed? Why was it not facilitated for the new technologies that we now see on the energy market and which we all applaud in all parts and fully?

We have an all too sluggish market that naturally must be adapted to new technologies. Why did Miljöpartiet not do that during its time in government? It is a question that sooner or later needs to be answered.

One can discuss whether this is an over-implementation or not. I want to assert that it is not.

Let us first look at the extensive reforming of the energy market across the board, particularly regarding the possibility of being paid for system services, which the government has now kicked into gear. Then we naturally also need to discuss the core issue, or the core problem, namely that Sweden needs more stable, clean, and predictable electricity production.

Nuclear power is a prerequisite for expanding wind power very significantly, as the Green Party wants. The problem is that the Green Party never wants to discuss the fundamental problem, which is that we need more electricity production in Sweden. Instead, they do everything to avoid that discussion. It is this that the discussion must constantly be brought back to. I noted that this was also not mentioned in the Social Democrats' post here.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is of course true that we want much more renewable energy. Wind power producers are standing in line to assist when it comes to the energy needs that exist in Sweden. We want to increase energy efficiency, and we want flexibility.

Right now we are talking about the flex issue and about the smart solutions. I noted that the member avoided answering the question, even if the rhetoric changed slightly. The member said that it can be discussed whether this is an over-implementation; previously he said that this is not an over-implementation. It is interesting.

One sits in a government position and presents the bill that we are discussing today. Why does one then choose to make it harder for the innovative actors to offer their services? These actors themselves say that by choosing this type of definition, with a connection to imbalance and influence, it makes it harder for them. Why do the Moderaterna and the government choose to implement the regulatory framework in that way?

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! It is, as has been said, one thing to say that it is over-implementation and a completely different thing whether it actually is. That is where our opinions differ.

Miljöpartiet devotes a lot of effort to discussions about flexibility and energy efficiency, and these are absolutely two important parts of the future energy system. In Miljöpartiet's world, however, talk about flexibility and energy efficiency always implies that one actually starts from – and to some extent believes – that less electricity should be produced in Sweden. Companies should adapt and at times shut down or change shifts. This is not a sustainable way forward for Sweden as an energy nation.

Regarding preparedness and adaptation to new technologies in the energy system, this directive is only a small step on the way. The EU will not do this work for us either; we have to do it ourselves. It was, therefore, again, that this government kicked off a comprehensive reforming of the entire energy market in November. I want to be clear that this reforming could, should, and would have been started by the previous government.

People talk about that it is not sufficiently eased for new technologies, but why didn't one do this during eight years in government? Why didn't one implement this in the way that one now claims it should be implemented? Why didn't one do it? Why didn't one get the thumb out?

Here, nothing was done, but unfortunately, one was overactive when it came to dismantling the most stable, reliable, and important parts of Sweden's energy system. That is why we now need to manage the dysfunctional energy system that Sweden has.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! This might not be such a good day for the Moderates to talk about stable and predictable electricity production. Does Mats Green know how much nuclear power produces today? One can be unlucky sometimes; that is also possible.

The Moderates usually have the industry's – and especially the companies' – well-being in the forefront. Heavy actors in Sweden who want to make a green transition say that they need cheap electricity production that they can convert into hydrogen. Their reduction is based on the hydrogen thing. What they do not embrace, even though Svenskt Näringsliv tries to make it sound that way, is that nuclear power would be the solution.

How do the Moderaterna view the conflict that I believe is noticeable in the talk about the industrial transition? There are even representatives in the Riksdag who write that the electricity production for the green transition in northern Sweden must not be established until it has been ensured that southern Sweden has a stable electricity production. Are the Moderaterna for this industrial transition that can lead to very large emission reductions in Sweden and show the way for a completely new industry in the world? How do the Moderaterna view this?

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! Everyone who has heard me at Moderate annual meetings knows that I am a big fan of Birger Lahti because he, in my view, is a reasonable Left Party member. It does, however, sometimes become a bit ironic when the Left Party is to tell us what the industry and the business community think, and we could say quite a lot about this.

The transition of the industrial and transport sectors is the very reason why the government has stated that Sweden needs to more than double its electricity production by 2045, and it is also why Sweden must move from renewable to fossil-free. Therefore, we have initiated the largest and fastest expansion of electricity production in Sweden's history.

Unfortunately, Vänsterpartiet says no to a large part of this, that is to say nuclear power. Vänsterpartiet also leaves much to be desired in other respects regarding guarding Sweden's existing hydropower and the possibility of expanding more hydropower. I am not talking about expanding the national rivers, but about installing more modern and efficient turbines in existing power plants. Vänsterpartiet has also been involved in dismantling the existing hydropower in southern Sweden.

We are absolutely in favor of the industry's transition and also want to ensure that there is energy for it. This applies, of course, to northern Sweden, where many of the projects are located, but also to southern Sweden.

I feel that even here, it is a bit my turn to speak. It is we who are responsible for the expansion of the electricity system while Vänsterpartiet just says no and no again.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank Mats Green for an attempt at an answer.

Everyone knows that with new nuclear power, electricity production will cost somewhere around 120 öre per kilowatt-hour, while wind power will cost 30-50 öre depending on whether it is land-based or offshore. The industry wants cheap electricity to produce hydrogen, not a cost of just over 1 krona per kilowatt-hour.

In the government, the Moderates, together with the Sweden Democrats, have done everything to brake, not facilitate and accelerate, the expansion of wind power in Sweden. I am afraid that Finland will get ahead with the fossil-free steel because of the Swedish government's passivity and that the expansion of renewable electricity, which is cheap and can be implemented quickly, has been slowed down.

I hope that this date etches itself into Mats Green's memory, the day I said that Finland might manage to get ahead of Sweden. I am afraid that it could be so because of how the government acts.

I have time to ask one more question. There are divided opinions on which model Swedish consumers and companies would benefit from. How do the Moderaterna view the Beken model for Swedish consumers to receive stable and cheap electricity? We are talking about production in Sweden. From their kitchen window, consumers can see how the electricity is produced and yet they pay ten times more than what it costs? How do the Moderaterna view this model for Swedish prices?

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! The confession model and the Left Party's proposal on Sweden prices are completely different things. I have had the privilege of meeting Bengt Ekenstierna to discuss this, among other things.

There is a reason why Vänsterpartiet is the only party in Sweden's Riksdag that advocates for its proposal.

What do the Moderates and I think about the Beken model? There are interesting things there. Among other things, transparency in the energy market is something that can definitely be discussed.

But again: they are completely different things, and I am not sure that Vänsterpartiet would actually introduce the Beken model.

Birger Lahti claims that it is nuclear power that causes expensive electricity and that it is the weather-dependent power sources that provide cheap electricity. He must be living in a parallel universe, because as nuclear power has been phased out, electricity has become more and more expensive. How could that possibly be true?

Let us remember that before Ringhals 1 and 2 were closed, one had the same electricity price throughout Sweden. It was only with the premature decommissioning of them that the prices began to soar. I do not know what reality Vänsterpartiet lives in, but it is completely wrong. Regardless of which figure or graph one looks at, one sees that when Sweden began to decommission nuclear power, we got these electricity prices. It is also precisely because of that we have the electricity prices we have today.

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

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating NU9 Implementation of the electricity market directive as it regards the delivery of electricity and aggregation services. The referral also contains a number of motions from the general motion period.

I stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval only of reservations 1, 5 and 25.

Madam Speaker! The proposal involves changes to the Electricity Act regarding the delivery of electricity and balancing responsibility. The changes are a consequence of the so-called electricity market directive. This concerns, among other things, rules for aggregation services to enable electricity users to adjust their electricity consumption based on different market signals. This can involve reducing electricity consumption when the grid is heavily loaded and increasing consumption when the electricity price is low.

What then is an aggregator? Well, it is someone who buys flexibility from us customers and then sells it further. The aggregator collects flexibility from many small electricity consumers in order to be able to sell it as a large bid on the market, and this is what the electricity consumers get paid for.

We have views on the bill's definition of imbalance, economic responsibility, and the compensation model for the imbalance. The proposal as it currently stands implies an all too broad definition of imbalance for those who wish to provide aggregation services. The proposal covers the entire activated flexibility, not just the imbalance that is caused. This should be clearer and in line with the terminology used in EU law. This risks hindering market access for aggregated demand flexibility.

The government proposes that the aggregator shall pay for the entire activated flexibility, not just for the imbalance it causes, which would have been natural.

The proposal also means that the aggregator must appoint a balance responsible party if the company itself is not one. This means that it will require significant financial securities. Here, the government proposes that the aggregator should pay the compensation, instead of what is proposed in the directive, which is that it should be paid jointly by those who benefit from the aggregation.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has a strong industry that contributes to solutions for a green transition, which creates jobs across the country and strengthens the conditions for Swedish businesses to succeed in global markets. A decisive factor for the green transition is the ongoing electrification. This applies in particular to the emergence of industries such as fossil-free steel, battery manufacturing, and electrification of transport, among others. Electrification is crucial to reach net-zero emissions by 2045 and can also reduce emissions in other countries through the export of climate-smart products.

In order not to lose focus on the importance of electrification, we want to emphasize that it is important for the industry's green transition. Therefore, it is important that the government continues to work with the electrification strategy that the Social Democratic government developed during the previous mandate period with 67 concrete proposals. It also included an action plan that we believe the government should continue to work with.

I can observe that the electrification strategy is no longer on the government's website. In a written question, however, Minister Ebba Busch answered that the strategy includes several relevant parts and that a number of measures in it have been implemented in the form of agency assignments, the reports of which the government has received or will receive, and that an analysis is ongoing within the Government Offices regarding which measures in the strategy may be relevant to pursue further. It is very good that it did not end up in the wastebasket, which I thought when it was not on the government's website. But one cannot help but ask the question: Why is the government not doing anything?

Madam Speaker! In order for us to manage the electrification, new infrastructure needs to be built. Investments in the expansion of the electricity grid and electricity production must be made to meet this. In this regard, the permit processes are of crucial importance. We need to shorten the permit processes and make them more predictable. We need to reform legislation and regulatory frameworks. There are currently two inquiries on the table waiting to be processed: the environmental assessment inquiry and the climate justice inquiry. Both are fully submitted and ready. What the government needs to do is to decide: What does the government want with the two inquiries?

To meet the conditions moving forward, we need more electricity production in both the short and long term. The fastest way to do that in the short term is to build more wind power, both on land and at sea. An important part here is the incentive study, which I believe will actually be presented tomorrow. Right now, the municipalities are sitting and waiting for it, and very little is happening. So it is very important.

Madam Speaker! All types of power are needed for us to continue to be at the forefront of the climate transition. We need to expand the electricity grid and the transmission capacity and build more electricity production throughout the country, and then all types of power are needed. It is a prerequisite for us to retain the jobs, strengthen our competitiveness and have a functioning welfare when it is needed most.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Monica Haider for the speech. The Member said that all power sources were needed, and then she listed wind power. Good so! But there is a question - or rather, a large number of questions - that the Social Democrats do everything to avoid answering and where they play the silent game with the Swedish people, and that is nuclear power. Magdalena Andersson promised in 2013 to phase out Swedish nuclear power. It is one of the few promises that she then kept. During her eight years in government, four reactors were phased out, so that promise was kept.

I noted that nothing was mentioned about nuclear power here at all, and therefore I would think it interesting to get answers to the following questions: Will the Social Democrats stand behind this government's new energy policy goal that it should be 100 percent fossil-free? Will the Social Democrats stand behind our ambition to retain the existing Swedish nuclear power? Will you stand behind our ambition to also expand the stable, predictable, and clean Swedish nuclear power? These three questions – regarding the energy policy goal, regarding retaining existing nuclear power, and regarding building new nuclear power – I would like to have answers to, because nuclear power was not mentioned with a single word in the speech held here before.

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

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! I think that Member Mats Green should be careful about talking about keeping election promises, or promises, given what we have seen since the government took office. That is what I think one should be careful about.

I was very clear in my speech: all types of power were needed. What I spoke about regarding wind power was that it is the fastest to expand, and it can be done in the short term. But all types of power were needed, and that also includes nuclear power. Mats Green knows that, so actually he doesn't need to ask the question - or does he? It is not news.

Silent play - I don't know if Mats Green only listens when he wants to listen. We have been quite clear that we do not want to phase out nuclear power now, and we can even commit to building new nuclear power. We need all the power. We need solar energy and wind - offshore wind and onshore wind. We may need to expand hydropower as well, for that part - everything so that we can get good, clean and cheap electricity so that we can develop and manage the climate transition in Sweden. It is crucial. It is not news, and Mats Green knows that. So now the members have received answers to their three questions.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the answer. It is a welcome announcement, especially when one spent eight years in a government position decommissioning a reactor every other year. We are currently dealing with the consequences of that.

Speaking of promises: This government will keep all its promises; we have only just begun. One of the most important promises is to restore the stable, predictable, and clean energy system that has been Sweden's great competitive advantage, especially when it comes to the climate challenge.

Now Monica Haider says that they can certainly imagine keeping Swedish nuclear power and furthermore building new. My question was about the fact that it stands in stark contrast to what was actually done in a government position, namely to decommission a reactor every other year. But we welcome it; it is good!

I did not receive an answer to the question of how one intends to position oneself regarding the new energy policy goal from this government, namely that it should be 100 percent fossil-free instead of 100 percent renewable. Renewable is just code for never ever wanting to have nuclear power anywhere at all. Will the Social Democrats support the new energy policy goal that it should be 100 percent fossil-free in Sweden?

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

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! The Moderates were also part of the energy agreement that was concluded in 2016. In that agreement, there was no stop for nuclear power, and Mats Green knows that. As for whether to stand behind a goal or not, your goal has just been presented, so I do not intend to answer that here in the rostrum today.

But it is interesting that Mats Green says that one should fulfill all their promises. In that case, you have a bit to live up to, because there are a number of promises that you have already broken after only a few months.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Monica Haider, for the speech!

The Chairman mentioned the incentive study regarding wind power and how to achieve better acceptance in areas where nature and the environment are utilized. I would like to hear how the Social Democrats stand regarding the compensation.

It is also about hydropower, and there one can compare with Norway. Jokkmokk municipality has eleven hydropower plants in its municipality; we have pointed out that example before. Umeå has one. But Umeå receives more compensation for its single hydropower station than Jokkmokk, which has eleven. This was pointed out many times when Monica Haider's party was in government: Is it reasonable that a municipality like Jokkmokk, which contributes somewhere around 9-10 percent of Sweden's energy supply, is among the poorest municipalities in the country?

How do the Social Democrats view a compensation model based on the idea that more of the values produced in the countryside must in some way remain in the locality? Otherwise, we will have conflicts and disputes over where to build.

The same applies to minerals, since we are talking about a transition. The mineral fee can be discussed a lot, but it is low compared to in many other countries. How do the Social Democrats view compensation to the local population, towns, and municipalities where this is produced?

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

Monica Haider (S)

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

That we have appointed this inquiry specifically regarding incentives is, in fact, an answer to the question of how we view it. It is clear that in some way, the countryside needs to be involved.

Exactly how I feel is a difficult question. We have a compensation system in Sweden that is supposed to level out the differences between the municipalities, but we also know that it does not do so fully. More needs to be done, and one also needs to be compensated in some way for the disturbances one experiences in one's surroundings. Right now, we have wind power that needs to be expanded, and there is a complete standstill right now. Then we need to do something.

But to answer the question exactly how, Birger Lahti, that is not what I want to do today. The commission will presumably present its proposal tomorrow. I also think it was a pity that the sitting government limited it to that it is the operators who should pay. I think it should have been open in the commission.

I am not prepared to say exactly how it should look, but in some way we need to compensate the municipalities and the residents who are disturbed by this.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Monica Haider!

I also mentioned hydropower, which is actually not included in the investigation, the same applies to minerals and other extractions that take place in the municipalities.

I still want to ask one final question: How do the Social Democrats view this dispute? People are talking about market design, and a new regulation from Brussels regarding what is called the Beken model in Sweden will surely come soon. How do the Social Democrats view it? You yourselves have taken up a "folkhemsel," as you call it. What was it that made you not look at the so-called Beken model?

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

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! No, the Social Democrats do not believe in the Beken model. We do not believe that it can be limited in that way, and we do not believe that it is even possible to implement. That is why we have presented a proposal with folkhemsel, where we mean that the state could procure and then sell on. That model is fully possible according to the directives that exist. But we do not believe in the Beken model.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the floor.

The member stated that more energy production was needed. The member was also clear about what needs to be done in the short term. Then wind power is needed. But what was needed in the long term, the member never returned to, and I actually did not become any wiser on that after the previous exchange of remarks either.

My question is therefore what the Social Democrats think is needed in the long term, what investments one is willing to make in the longer perspective, and whether nuclear power is included in this.

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

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not know how clearly or unclearly it can be perceived when I say that all types of power were needed. That all types of power were needed also means nuclear power, solar power, energy efficiency and so on, or if something new were to come, whatever that might be.

All forces are needed. That is the answer to Louise Eklund's question.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! I then wonder if I have understood the member correctly that the Social Democrats are willing to invest in new nuclear power.

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

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if we Social Democrats are willing to invest in new nuclear power. That is for the market actors to do, I think. They have to manage on their own terms.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal in the report.

When I stood in this speaker's chair a year ago, I said that I perceived that we need a planning goal of at least 300 terawatt-hours 2040 and that we shall have an electricity system that is as cost-effective as possible, where we see one-third nuclear power, one-third renewable, and one-third hydro and bio-power in order to be able to achieve stability and robustness in the electricity system as such. I still stand by that.

It is also no secret that we Christian Democrats, together with our colleagues in the Moderates, the Liberals, and the Sweden Democrats, went to the election saying that we want to see a completely new energy policy with a new energy policy goal that says 100 percent fossil-free, which we have now included in our government bill.

Well, a year ago, I also said that I believe the government should pay back the electricity debt to households, and that is what the government is doing now. The electricity support that has been paid out and will be paid out is, as is known, already paid-in funds, so-called bottleneck revenues, which is also a better support than what we could see last winter. Sadly, support was needed, but it is not in that way that we solve the energy crisis.

Madam Speaker! In a time when many people are carrying a heavy burden, we do what we can to alleviate and support. The long-awaited electricity support for households in electricity area 3 and 4 has been paid out. Many have had to turn down the heat in their homes and have frozen during the winter. Families with children and the elderly are affected by both more expensive food, higher interest rates on their loans, and high electricity bills.

To alleviate the ongoing energy crisis, the government has taken a number of measures, in both the short and long term. It has been about pooling resources and securing every available kilowatt-hour. It has been about saving and collectively reducing the risk of disconnection. It is about supporting households and companies through several different electricity subsidies.

We do this so that families with children can manage their livelihood better, for pensioners and single-person households, for the Swedish economy and for the jobs.

This government is taking over an electricity system that has been dismantled during eight years of Social Democratic rule. In southern Sweden, the situation has been particularly troublesome. Electricity area 4 is the region in Europe that, according to reports, has had the least installed electricity production compared to the needs that exist. This contributes to a heavy burden on the electricity system in the entire country in terms of both supply and price level.

When Stefan Löfven took office as Prime Minister, Sweden had ten functioning nuclear power reactors. Four of these have been decommissioned, and the planning of two new reactors has stopped. For this, the Swedish people have paid a high price, above all a high price for the decommissioned electricity production in southern Sweden. Therefore, in a committee initiative during the previous parliamentary term, I took up that we should keep Ringhals 1 and 2 while the chance existed and while they were still alive, in all until there is something else in place.

I obviously have full respect for the fact that there are parties that do not believe that nuclear power should exist in the Swedish energy system, and one is allowed to have different opinions in a democratic society. But despite this, one does not even want to consider keeping the reactors until there is something else in place.

Madam Speaker! On September 11, 2022, Sweden received a new start. The current government has initiated the rebuilding of a robust energy system. The work is demanding. It will take time, but it must be done. We Christian Democrats are now ensuring that the work gets done.

We must secure the supply of electricity now and for upcoming winters. All good forces will be needed - sun, wind, water, nuclear power and even new nuclear power - just as I said a year ago. Work is being carried out on a broad front through shorter permit processes for different types of power. The ban on constructing nuclear power plants in new locations is being abolished.

Nine days after the government took office, an electricity subsidy was presented. The first electricity subsidy has been paid out, and the second, which goes to all of Sweden, is to be paid out and be available to households in part in June.

Do not doubt that we have acted from day one so that the support reaches as quickly as it is only possible. This support is significantly larger and more comprehensive than the previous government's support during last winter. For example, the support for a standard villa with a consumption of approximately 20,000 kilowatt-hours per year amounted to about 10,000 kronor, and it was necessary. But more help is on the way. We have shown that we can pool resources, save, and support. Together we will manage this. The electricity support with this government is larger, faster, and safer.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! We want fewer regulations and reduced administrative costs for small and medium-sized enterprises. Furthermore, we want to work for good administrative practice where entrepreneurs are involved from the beginning in the process of introducing EU legislation into Swedish legislation. Today, EU legislation is over-implemented and does not provide companies with the conditions for good competitiveness.

These are not my own words, even though I am signing them. They are Camilla Brodin's own words.

Then the question is: In what way have small business owners been involved from the beginning, as Camilla Brodin wants to see, in the legislation we are now discussing regarding aggregator services? How do Camilla Brodin and Kristdemokraterna defend that this directive is so clearly over-implemented? Otherwise, one could have simply introduced the EU directive's provisions directly, but that is what they have chosen not to do.

How do you explain that one is over-implementing at a cost to precisely the small and medium-sized enterprises and also for households in that regard? How, Camilla Brodin, have the small businesses been involved from the beginning and discussed this?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Rickard Nordin for the question.

I can truly emphasize that it was my words, for that is how I have spoken and that is how I will also speak moving forward.

I am glad that we have a government right now that actually ensures that we will introduce an implementation council where these very issues will be monitored even more strictly than what we have seen previous governments do.

I agree that it is unfortunate when it is over-implemented. But I believe that Member Rickard Nordin and I have slightly different views on what constitutes over-implementation in this situation. I agree with my former colleague who has been up here at the rostrum, the Moderate Mats Green, that we probably have slightly different views on the whole thing. But it is absolutely important that we keep the issue under scrutiny, so that we do not hold back new innovations while companies can flourish.

We will need to help each other in order to be able to get ourselves out of the energy crisis for real.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I note that Camilla Brodin and Kristdemokraterna cannot answer how the small companies have been involved in this process. The truth is, if one looks at the referral responses, which I have done, that those who have represented small companies, for example independent electricity retailers or Power Circle which looks at new technology, are those who are critical of the government's implementation of the directive.

The government listens too much to large companies that find it easy to enter markets. And it has been over-implemented, because if you don't think it has been over-implemented, why haven't you used the wording of the EU directive? That is the simplest way to actually get it exactly as the EU intended and not invent a lot of other things.

The referral response is clear that it is an over-implementation, especially from the referral bodies that Camilla Brodin says she protects: small and medium-sized enterprises.

Why has it then been chosen to do it this way? Why has a different wording been chosen? Why has it been chosen to go against the small and medium-sized enterprises, even though Camilla Brodin herself says that it is them one should listen to in order to avoid over-implementation?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question again. I hope that the member listened to what I said about upcoming implementation councils, something that has been a great lack in Swedish politics for a very long time. There have not been organized forms to be able to take advantage of all the competence that I know all our small and medium-sized enterprises have a significant role in when it comes to over-implementation.

I hope and believe that all parties nevertheless see a value in a forthcoming implementation council that shall stand guard over these issues. With this proposition and this report, we nevertheless see the possibility with what is contained in the proposal. One will as a customer be able to steer to a much greater extent with electric car charging at the right times. Together we will be able to create flexibility in this very difficult time where we must share the electricity at the right times in different parts of our geographically elongated country.

This government takes responsibility for ensuring that the entire electricity system functions, so we can stop talking about different types of power, because all types of good power will be needed. We will need to talk more about the entire electricity system, both regarding the grids and the permit processes and electricity production, if we are to meet the challenge. So thank you for the question, Rickard Nordin!

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Madam Speaker! I want to dwell a little on the question of the possibility for the new actors and for households and companies to earn and save money, simply talk about aggregation. What is so fantastically good about the aggregation solution is that it gives both households and companies the opportunity to lower their electricity costs. Actors can come in as intermediaries and help customers aggregate loads, as it is called, and sell on markets so that customers can earn money. And through automated solutions, one can simply maintain the comfort, so it is a win-win.

It feels extremely urgent in the times we live in, with high electricity prices and large increasing electricity needs ahead, to truly make use of the smart solutions. Then I wonder why the government and the member choose to defend the proposal for implementation that actually expands the definition from imbalance to impact, which the actors themselves believe can cast a wet blanket over this market. In the long run, it means that the government does not want to help households and companies save money and earn money through aggregation.

I wonder: Why do you choose the expanded definition, which the actors themselves say affects the possibilities for success with aggregation?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Marielle Lahti for the question.

The proposals in the bill concern aggregation services that will create new conditions for electricity users to be able to increase consumption flexibility through so-called aggregators. Through this, one can control, reduce, and shift consumption when it is most expensive to consume electricity. Good. Finally, we have this in place!

I absolutely welcome the bill. If I interpret the member correctly, she is speaking about the same thing that Rickard Nordin did earlier, that is, about over-implementation that would push out the smaller companies. I am therefore very happy that the government will now also introduce an implementation council, which the previous government did not do. That is done based on the view that we must take advantage of all good forces and conduct a dialogue, not just a monologue, towards the future.

We shall not stop new innovations, but we shall enable them. We do, however, see that we have come a good way in this situation, and I look forward to the implementation council that will be established in the future.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Madam Speaker! I still hear a concern from the member that this might involve an over-implementation. We can absolutely have an implementation council. It is very important not to over-implement. That is true. But is there not reason to back down if we already have knowledge that actors mean that this involves an over-implementation in a way that risks harming the development of the market? Even the member points out that it is so important. Perhaps we should think about it and make an adjustment so that we do not risk nullifying the new market? Later today, we will actually vote on this.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question as to whether we will change our minds at the vote this afternoon. The answer is no. Politicians are not always clear, but I am very clear on this issue.

This is a first step, and we see that it is necessary. The question was on the previous government's table, but nothing was done about it. Now we are taking care of it so that it also becomes possible to participate through aggregators. One will be able to control one's load so that one helps in the entire energy system which is so important.

In Sweden, we have for a long time been able to take our electricity completely for granted. It has been there when it has been needed and at competitive prices, but that is no longer the case. Therefore, it is very important that the government has now turned the entire energy policy to build up a robust and stable electricity system for the future. These issues are part of that whole.

It is not, however, a solution to everything. We will need to work much more. Furthermore, the entire energy issue has also become a security policy issue. There is, therefore, much to be done in the matter. We have taken a step forward. We will monitor the situation for the small and medium-sized enterprises in the future. I am, however, pleased that we have reached this point and that we can see how the future unfolds.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Enterprise's report 2022/23:NU9 Implementation of the electricity market directive as it relates to the delivery of electricity and aggregation services. I would first like to move for the approval of the Sweden Democrats' reservation 6 under point 7 regarding motion 2022/23:998 by Martin Kinnunen and others.

There are many details in the directive that one could delve into, but I thought I would start with a brief overview and take a step back.

Madam Speaker! Last week, parts of the EU's climate package Fit for 55 were passed in the European Parliament. The goal is that the EU's countries, in barely seven years, shall achieve as much in terms of emission reductions as has been achieved over the last 30 years. For the sake of the global average temperature, the ambition is to reduce carbon emissions by 55 percent by the year 2030, with 1990's values as the starting point.

Fit for 55 is a package packed with measures that will not only affect people's lives and everyday routines but, above all, make it much more expensive to live. The idea is that thousands of tax billions shall be invested and massive regulations introduced to, at best, marginally affect the global average temperature.

Here I actually reproduced what the EU Commission said. That is the answer I received to a question I asked about how great an effect these investments of the taxpayers' billions would have on the global average temperature. "Marginal" was thus the answer. Furthermore, it applies on the condition that China and the rest of the world do not increase their emissions, which they are doing.

Madam Speaker! Europe today accounts for approximately 7 percent of global carbon emissions, and in line with new innovations, inventions, modernized industries and growth in other parts of the world, the share is steadily decreasing. And while the population growth is exploding in parts of Africa and China, new coal power plants are being built on an assembly line, the EU, with its declining share, shall therefore continue to implement massive measures, many of which, in the name of honesty, hardly contribute to reduced emissions in the end.

What happens when prices for electricity, transport, aviation, production, and construction increase in Europe? Well, companies and production, and thus jobs, move to other parts of the world. These are parts where one has not yet been able to afford to phase out their fossil dependency or modernize their industry. Our steadily decreasing emissions become larger emissions somewhere else.

Madam Speaker! Now the Chamber is surely wondering what an exposition on the EU's climate package Fit for 55 has to do with today's debate on the introduction of parts of the new electricity market directive. I want to assert that the directive itself in many ways constitutes an example of something we will see more of in the future, namely various attempts at patching, repairing, and compensating for a fundamentally flawed energy policy.

The EU's ambitions to become carbon neutral focus, for obvious reasons, among other things on electricity production, and as a general solution, they now want to force through so-called renewable, weather-dependent types of energy, primarily large-scale wind power. This does not only increase emissions, compared to investments in predictable nuclear power, but it also places much higher demands on the grids, transmission capacity, as well as power, balance, and reserve power.

The directive is, in large part, therefore a result of what I consider to be a flawed investment within energy policy. With the help of aggregation services, which we have heard about here today, greater flexibility in the grid area, and balancing responsibility delegated to grid owners, it constitutes an attempt to mitigate the effects of the increasingly unstable and weather-dependent energy system. Through legislative changes, the aim is simply to address the capacity and power shortage that decisions made in the name of the climate have caused.

It is spoken of today that we are to create a robust and fossil-free energy system, not least in Sweden. I, who have now been involved for several decades, can however state that it was precisely what we had in Sweden once. We had a robust and almost fossil-free energy system. It was predictable and competitive and has served us well. Sweden had, in fact, already made a fantastic journey towards fossil-free, from an almost 80-percent fossil dependence in the beginning of the 70s to a mere fifth, thanks to the expansion of nuclear power and our natural resource hydropower as well as a purposeful transmission grid.

So that was how it looked until the so-called climate policy came into focus. Suddenly, the efficient and low-carbon nuclear power was no longer considered acceptable, but was instead to be phased out in favor of the weather-dependent and, in practice, more carbon-intensive wind power. Energy policy became the center as the hub of a green transition. When it comes to our electricity supply and our power system, it is obvious that ideological conviction and naivety have taken the lead.

Madam Speaker! Great political visions seem today to contain not only fine words about a better future but also large financial investments or spending of the taxpayers' money. In the latest political vision of a carbon-neutral Europe, no investment seems too small as long as it is classified as green, renewable, or climate-smart. Whether it actually does any good for the climate, has any effect on the global average temperature, or gives the citizens any return on the investments seems, however, subordinate. No, it is the ambition that is rewarded. The one with the highest set goals, unrealistic or not, is rewarded.

As a Sweden Democrat, I believe in inventions, innovation, development, and people's own drive. I genuinely believe in the pursuit of an increasingly efficient and environmentally friendly use of our common assets, but not that we politicians should pre-select winning technologies or steer markets with massive subsidies and tax funds. With high goals, great political ambitions, and a lot of money—the taxpayers' money, of course—misguided investments follow like a letter in the mail. By that, I do not mean Postnord; you probably understand what I mean.

They say that one becomes wise through experience. But then one might wonder why we have not learned anything from previous political regulations and failed initiatives. These were initiatives preceded by great visions and election-winning slogans, but fewer consequence analyses. This applies to projects such as Stålverk 80, Gobigas, various methanol initiatives, etcetera. Looking ahead, I would not be surprised if the multi-billion investments in steel without coal in the north, or the transition to large-scale and industrial but weather-dependent wind power, will be able to be added to the list – or perhaps even the ban on the internal combustion engine.

The question that should be able to be answered is how green and climate-smart it actually is to destroy a competitive, efficient, and low-fossil electricity production in the middle of a transition that will require a doubling of the electricity supply. And how many compensatory measures in the form of new EU directives will need to be implemented to mitigate the effects of all the ill-considered decisions?

Madam Speaker! If climate policy were to be illustrated with a fairy tale, it could have been personified with the help of an emperor. The Brussels officials would have been portrayed as a cheering crowd. I would probably have been depicted as the jester, or perhaps rather the child, who points out that the emperor in reality is, if not naked, at least very thinly dressed.

To tie up the bag in my speech, I want to conclude by quoting from our reservation in the committee report: "We consider it of the utmost importance that the competitiveness of both the Swedish and the European industry is not impaired to such an extent that carbon-generating production is moved to countries with a less ambitious climate policy. The negative impact of electricity prices on climate policy should therefore be given greater attention. This should be something the Riksdag stands behind and announces to the government."

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Madam Speaker! I have a question in view of the member's speech. It concerns the use of tax revenue. Can the Sverigedemokraterna consider using tax revenue to finance existing or new nuclear power?

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is a complex issue. What we are trying to do is to create the technology neutrality that has been missing for quite many years, when the market has been distorted and wind and solar power in particular have been subsidized in different ways. That is the starting point.

There is a lot of talk about it being the market that governs investments and so on. We heard here before the Social Democrats say that they do not intend to build new nuclear power but that the market should do it. But it is we politicians who create the conditions ourselves. There, there has been a total distortion. That is also why we are in the situation we are in today. We switch between a large electricity surplus and power shortages, companies cannot establish themselves in southern Sweden, we need even more electricity in northern Sweden going forward and so on. This needs to be corrected.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Madam Speaker! It was an answer but still not an answer to the question. I hear that the Sweden Democrats might consider spending tax money on nuclear power with the justification I previously heard. But is this really reasonable, when we have competing actors who are willing to invest their own money to build, for example, offshore wind power or onshore wind power, and they quite well meet the needs that exist without a single tax krona being used? Is it reasonable to use tax funds to finance nuclear power?

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! Now, it is not that this is being built with entirely own funds, but it is actually the taxpayers and the electricity consumers who have to bear the infrastructure, that is to say the transmission networks. It is not possible to say that it is being built on entirely own capital.

It is also a fact that we need to compensate with something else when it is not blowing. That reserve, power, and balancing capacity that is needed is financed by the electricity consumers and by the taxpayers. The entire basic premise is, after all, incorrect.

What we are trying to ensure is that the electricity producer covers more and more of the costs for the type of energy they supply to the market. They must cover the costs all the way. We are trying to balance this and level the conditions between the different types of power.

The conditions that have existed have obviously not actually applied, because if they had, we would not be in the situation we are in. As I mentioned, we sometimes have a major power shortage. There is a risk of disconnection. There are companies that cannot establish themselves. This is alternated with periods of extreme overproduction of electricity and thus dumped prices. It becomes a situation that does not benefit anyone.

When it comes to the wind power companies, it is becoming increasingly clear that they are no longer making a profit. They have significantly shorter lifespans than what was calculated in the basic calculations. Despite favorable tax deductions, we see that they are building themselves into a deficit. When it blows, it is in large areas. Then one must compete with everyone else who is in production. We have a severe imbalance here, and it must be corrected.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! That the importance of electricity is increasing is indisputable. A few weeks ago, the Swedish Energy Agency presented its latest forecast. It states, among other things, that electricity continues to replace other energy carriers in the energy system. The agency's assessment is that Sweden's electricity consumption will increase in several sectors until 2025. For example, we see how the transport sector will use significantly more electricity in line with the rapid electrification of the vehicle fleet. Within industry, we also see that electricity partially replaces fossil fuels. This is, of course, very pleasing.

Against that background, it is also clear that we need a power system that delivers electricity when we need it and where we need it. We must, of course, be able to rely on there being electricity in the socket that we can afford to use and that is also not entirely dependent on the weather.

Madam Speaker! For nearly half a century, Sweden has had an electricity supply that has been based on hydropower and nuclear power. We have seen additions from combined heat and power and, more recently, also from solar and wind. This electricity has been transported across Sweden through a very stable power grid with high capacity and reliability.

Overall, this has meant that we have had one of the world's best-equipped electricity systems with almost all production predictable and with a very high reliability. This has been absolutely crucial for Sweden's development as an industrial country.

Since 2014, Sweden has pursued a somewhat different policy with the clear ambition to reduce the importance of nuclear power. This has caused us to shift towards having an electricity system that primarily has renewable energy production. As a result, the electricity system has functioned worse than it has done previously.

We have seen it very clearly in my home region of Skåne. There, during this past winter, we have had a real risk of disconnection due to a lack of power. We have had sharply rising electricity prices when we have been left at the mercy of the continent's electricity prices and energy production.

We have not had sufficient transmission capacity from the north to the south. We have unfortunately also seen how we have started to use increasingly more fossil sources when the renewable production has not been enough.

It is not enough. We cannot be a high-tech society, an industrial nation, and a country that can and should be driving the green transition and not have an energy system that is insufficient. That is why the government has set as one of its most important goals to break the development we have seen in Sweden since 2014 and to begin rebuilding and establishing a functioning electricity system.

Such a system can be said, somewhat loosely, to have three parts. They are production, transmission, and use. Each part must be in balance at every moment, otherwise we have problems. This means that we must now work broadly across all three of these areas.

We need to bring back fossil-free energy production in the energy mix. We need to build away bottlenecks so that the transmission works better. We need to start paying for system services. We need to continue to work with energy efficiency and how we can use electricity smarter.

Madam Speaker! The government's energy policy goal is now that Sweden shall move from a threatening electricity shortage to an electricity surplus of fossil-free energy. It is my hope that more parties want to join that line so that Swedish households and Swedish companies can receive the broad support regarding energy policy that they have rightly demanded for a long time.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! This debate concerns electricity market directives and aggregation services, plus, of course, an additional 25 decision points beyond the proposed legislative amendments.

During my nearly nine years in the Riksdag, I do not believe I have received as many reactions from citizens on any other issue than I have received now regarding electricity prices. Their question is: How did we end up here?

The reason can certainly be attributed to the Russians' invasion of Ukraine, or the accident in Fukushima, or more precisely, the traces of that accident. Some would say it is due to the reliance on Russian gas or the deregulation of the electricity market.

In any case, it becomes difficult for a villa owner to accept that the electricity price has increased from 32 öre per kilowatt-hour to 132 öre or 232 öre per kilowatt-hour, plus the value-added tax that the state collects. This occurs when the cost of producing the electricity that this person consumes has not increased significantly.

These examples naturally come from northern Sweden, where I have most of my contacts with voters. Add then consumers in southern Sweden who have been affected by even higher prices.

I was at the seminar on Monday and listened to how parliamentarians from some EU countries view the future regarding the energy supply. What I can state is that they are as much in disagreement as we are in Sweden if one listens to what the government base comes up with from one day to the next.

But no one at this seminar praised Sweden's production, which saved them from their failures regarding the energy supply. Nor did they thank Sweden's consumers for having paid billions to electricity producers, Svenska kraftnät, or the Swedish state in the wake of the unhealthy energy market that prevails.

I have now understood that for the current government, it is paramount above all else to defend the EU's interests and a market model that benefits capital owners. We are transferring more and more power to the Commission, the Council, and the Parliament in Brussels.

In any case, it comes to mind for me how Ronny Eriksson declared in a comedy sketch how stupid it is to install a thermostat in Brussels to regulate the heat in Piteå.

Of course, there are also advantages to common markets and interconnected grids regarding the electricity supply. But letting a society-critical function such as the electricity supply be governed solely by market forces will not only make many households much poorer. It will also jeopardize the future of our industries and their plans for a green transition.

When we look at all the steps taken in the EU's common integrated energy market, they all indicate that there is a desire to make the price the same for all EU countries. Which countries are those that have had the cheapest electricity prices without the state having had to provide subsidies? Yes, it is among others Sweden.

Which country will get more expensive electricity and again become the one that suffers the most negative consequences from these regulations that override our national determination over our own production and the pricing of the same? Yes, it is not in any case Germany and Poland, as some examples, Madam Speaker.

As the debate progresses, it will become clear how we should save electricity, or rather, get rid of more electricity when production is high and consumption is low, all so that the system as a whole functions and benefits. Much is obviously quite simple, as in the champagne advertisement with Henke Lundqvist.

But what is not coming out is, obviously, how we as a country suddenly take a very large responsibility for the energy needs of other EU countries. We have expanded production. This has resulted in that we today are the one of the EU countries that exported the most electricity in the first half of 2022, for example.

What has happened is that Sweden has become a battery for some of the continent's countries, and the price for that is paid by our households and companies. Here I also note the government's failure to support all those who have been affected by these prices.

It is obviously good that we contribute renewable electricity to countries that are unable to produce enough for their own consumption. But is it good that our citizens pay extortionate prices for electricity that they see from their kitchen window when it is produced for perhaps 10 öre or up to 30 öre per kilowatt-hour? No, that is in any case not what we in Vänsterpartiet think.

What surprises me immensely is how all other parties in this Riksdag have accepted that a socially vital function, such as the electricity supply to their own population, should be priced by a failed energy market that has an impact on decisions that we have never been able to influence. Nor has anyone asked us how we view the consequences of being their battery and conscience.

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet has supported the amendment of the Electricity Act and the Power Reserve Act, as well as the supplementation of the Tire Marking Ordinance, which are addressed in the committee report.

Regarding aggregation services, it is good to have access to it when prices over the day can vary between 5 öre and several kronor per kilowatt-hour, but is it such an energy system we should strive for? Then it must be clear who has the balancing responsibility locally in the electricity grid and in what way such a responsible party can and is allowed to act. And who should price the aggregation service?

I am not so convinced about the success of our market inspections when it comes to trying to reflect any kind of market design. With all the turmoil that the electricity market has put many households and companies in, it would obviously be appropriate to have an electricity crisis commission, but even on this issue, we are apparently alone in pushing for it.

Madam Speaker! There are as many examples as I could read out of how people, associations, companies and communities are affected by these exorbitant electricity prices that we have experienced in recent times.

There will be frozen village halls and associations that run cafes that shut down. Civil society's commitment is waning now, you should know. We have small businesses going bankrupt and municipalities that are hit hard and must opt out of housing for the elderly or lay off staff to manage the electricity costs.

All of this could this Riksdag counteract if one had the courage to challenge the market and ensure that Sweden's consumers would be able to buy our own-produced electricity at normal prices and at the same time give modest profits to the producers. But apparently, the community in Strasbourg and Brussels is more important than achieving a sober and sound pricing of our own-produced electricity.

Madam Speaker! The Left Party naturally stands behind all our reservations. But I move for approval only of reservation 7, which means that we introduce a pricing model that we have named Sverigepriser. It is a development from the Beken model that would solve the pricing for Swedish households and companies, while we export electricity and are solidary with our neighboring countries, just as today.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has unique conditions for transition. For that, a significantly expanded energy production is required. What it will be will not be governed by politics but by the market. It is actually not a matter for this debate, even though it has sounded that way from previous speakers.

Yesterday I participated in the trade fair Fastighetsenergi. One thing that ran as a common thread through all the seminars was efficiency and flexibility. It is absolutely crucial for lowering electricity costs and creating room for maneuver while we buy ourselves time in the rest of the expansion.

Then it may seem wise for the government to present legislation regarding aggregator services that are intended to help many small consumers gather together just flexibility. The problem is that the government's proposal is characterized by ignorance, misunderstanding, and a lack of sensitivity towards those who will actually perform these services. The flexibility that almost all experts, from Svenska kraftnät and Energimyndigheten to property owners and industrial companies, say is completely crucial and important for our competitiveness – the Moderates have called electricity rationing. This characterizes the government's proposal.

The proposal goes significantly further than the directive does; one only has to read the directive and compare it word for word with the bill. This was legislation that was supposed to facilitate and clarify the roles that the aggregator has, but it is now instead becoming a hindrance and an obstacle for these services.

Given that this risks nullifying the entire business model, I move for approval of reservation 2 in the committee report, in order to ensure that the economic conditions remain reasonable and the social benefit can be realized.

Regardless of what is said in the old tired power grid debate, and even if we streamline and utilize flexibility to the maximum, transmission capacity is also needed. Today, the bottlenecks are enormously numerous, and building them away takes time - far too much time.

Despite the talk of ten to twelve years for a trunk network, the government is not presenting any proposal to the Riksdag to shorten the permit processes. There are two completed investigations on the government's desk. They are referred and ready. Despite that, nothing is happening. Despite all the words we hear in all the debates about shorter permit times, nothing is happening. The government is sitting on its hands. The government's passivity threatens Swedish competitiveness and drives up costs, and not least inflation.

For the transition, transmission capacity is needed from the north to the south but also from the south to the north, where industrial development is now gaining momentum. The reports are full of warnings that one risks hitting the ceiling. Svenska kraftnät's plans are insufficient. In Gothenburg alone, a doubled capacity was needed by 2030.

If the pace is not increased by the government when it comes to the permit processes, it will be difficult with battery factories in cities such as Göteborg, Mariestad and Svenljunga. When they fail, I will hold the government personally responsible for the failure, given that they have not presented the proposals that have been requested and which are ready.

In the north, we see how large consumers are not receiving capacity in time to carry out their investments. Many companies are disappointed, and Svenska kraftnät is not delivering sufficiently. A clearer prioritization among the existing applications is needed to maximize the social and environmental benefit of the investments.

Where is the leadership from the government? Clearer directives are needed to Energimarknadsinspektionen and to Svenska kraftnät to participate in this societal development. We need rules that allow for the construction of power grid lines with margin. We need to ensure that microgrids can be expanded and that the microgrids that exist can be utilized without being penalised by taxation, as Skatteverket has now concluded. We need to ensure that the grids that are already environmentally approved, for example within a wind farm, do not need to apply for a concession unnecessarily.

We simply need to reform the electricity grid regulation. There are a multitude of different things that could make a big difference. Create profitability in flexibility! Add research and development! Demand efficiencies so that the grid is not expanded unnecessarily!

We need much more research on grid regulation and grid models. It could create great benefit. We see how a number of different companies have a number of different rules, for example when it comes to power tariffs. To be able to expand, local acceptance was also needed. Now comes an incentive study for wind power, which I would have gladly seen was significantly broader. But acceptance is of course also needed when it comes to electricity grid regulation.

Better compensation is needed, and we need to build more land-efficiently. We also need to create a foundation for jobs and entrepreneurship. For those who do not get a power grid, it doesn't matter what production we have.

The electricity law needs to be reviewed. It is clear that it was written for a completely different time, with a few large-scale facilities rather than many small ones and with customers who act passively. This is what the electricity grid law is based on, and that is no longer the case. Today we see active consumers who produce themselves in their many decentralized facilities. This is good from a total defense perspective and creates reduced vulnerability. We have seen this, at least today, when we have had two large facilities that have fallen out due to a power outage.

We also finally need to review the market model. Svenska kraftnät needs to be given the long-term responsibility for the energy supply. A shortage of support services must, of course, be addressed. Here, procurement must take place, but it must be done in a long-term and technology-neutral manner.

The cost should, of course, burden those who do not deliver to the system. We should not pay blindly for everyone who cannot even choose. To do so, just as some parties talk about and as it almost stands in the Tidö Agreement, would become expensive. Paying billions of kronor for something that one already gets for free today will make it more expensive for households and companies and worsen our competitiveness. Furthermore, this also drives up inflation. That the companies lobby for this is not so strange; it would mean billions of kronor to them for something they already do without having to do anything extra. To me, it sounds insane.

Unfortunately, the questions regarding electricity prices, grid regulation, and market models have been met with a fairly large lack of interest and lukewarm engagement from many other parties, as long as it did not involve throwing further fuel on some kind of power-struggle debate between wind power and nuclear power.

If there is anything I would have wished for from an energy minister and a government after the election, it is that they had started to deliver concrete messages. This is possibly also the first proposition that comes along that goes in a completely wrong direction with over-implementation, making it difficult for companies and driving up costs.

I do not want any more proposals of that kind. I want to lower the costs. I do not want any more proposals, strategies, and overviews. We need to get the shovel in the ground, and that is not happening right now. These issues are far too important to be reduced to campaign posters, quick talking points, and soundbite debates. These issues are crucial for Swedish competitiveness. They are crucial for the transition. They are also crucial for the countryside, for health, and for security.

This challenge is gigantic. We in Centerpartiet are determined, and we have the will. We are ready to come to the negotiating table, because we need unity in this. The question is whether the other parties are ready to get the shovel in the ground for the sake of the climate and for Sweden's sake.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Swedish energy system faces many major changes today. The transformation brings both challenges and opportunities. The electrification of the vehicle fleet, modern home electronics, energy storage, and local electricity production create enormous opportunities to promote the smart grids of the future, all for the benefit of Swedish electricity customers.

At the center of the transformation is the power system's ability, with the help of smart technology, to steer towards a more flexible electricity use where the customer automatically moves, for example, the charging of their electric car or the use of the heat pump to when the electricity price is at its lowest.

However, for this to be able to happen in an efficient way, proper steering measures from politics are required. Without the right incentives at the system level, it will be up to the individual to take responsibility for shifting their consumption to those hours of the day when the availability of electricity is at its best.

Since the electricity price is set in two places, via the electricity trading price and then also via the transmission cost, the network fee, it can be complicated for the individual customer to have full control over when the price is at its lowest. It does not necessarily have to be coordinated. In that case, it is good if customers can get help with this from actors who are professionals.

Miljöpartiet therefore wants to enable new, innovative business models to emerge to promote this smarter electricity use, something that everyone, and households in particular, will benefit from. This includes, among other things, creating conditions for so-called aggregators to operate on the Swedish electricity market.

Implementation of the electricity market directive regarding the delivery of electricity and aggregation services

We have been talking about aggregators for a while now. They collect a larger number of customers' potential to at a given time reduce or increase their electricity consumption to balance supply and demand. This balancing often occurs completely automatically and with completely maintained comfort for the customer.

This would be enormously valuable for the system as a whole and a fantastic resource to cut, for example, peak loads. The flexibility can replace the expensive production of electricity and thus lower the electricity price in total.

The bill that the government has presented addresses a number of obstacles in a very good way. But unfortunately, it also risks creating problems, given its current design. The crucial point here – we have already discussed this several times in the chamber – is the concept of "imbalance," which is clearly defined in line with the terminology used within EU law.

In the proposed design, "imbalance" is used to describe the impact that occurs on other actors when aggregated demand flexibility is activated. With this broad interpretation, which has now been chosen to proceed with, the economic responsibility mentioned in the EU regulation becomes far too extensive. It will constitute a barrier to market access for aggregated demand flexibility. Therefore, we believe that the definition should be changed. We have proposed that "imbalance" should be defined as the difference between sold and delivered volume.

We mean that the current design risks nullifying the intention of the regulatory framework: to promote new actors' opportunities to help customers in the electricity system. We also mean that the design unfortunately may affect the current flexibility market's opportunities to continue its important work of supporting those who have needs for energy and power locally, for example here in Stockholm.

I move for approval of reservations 1 and 10.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 15.)

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