Supplementary provisions to the EU gas storage regulation

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! Fertilizer makes our fields grow, bread feeds our stomachs, iron powder is used for our most advanced metal products, and sugar is in every other product in our refrigerator. Insulin saves 50,000 people every day from the effects of diabetes, and thanks to our clean drinking water, we avoid being struck by diseases and going thirsty during the day. These products do not arise by themselves, but they are products where gas is a very important component.

Gas, whether it is fossil gas or biogas, has been treated harshly during the last eight red-green years despite being fundamental to the citizens' everyday lives. The previous government adopted a clear pessimistic stance towards gas in all its forms without giving a thought to where it can come from and what it is used for.

Already today, 35 percent of the gas in the west Swedish gas grid is climate-neutral biogas, but it does not come from Sweden but primarily from Denmark, which has taken a holistic approach and understood its importance. It is a good example that Sweden should follow to increase the proportion of biogas and reduce climate emissions.

The approximately 8 terawatt-hours of gas used in Western Sweden per year comes to us via a single pipe under the Öresund. Should this pipe fail, like other large gas pipes did last year, Sweden would soon risk being left without clean drinking water. This is what we are talking about.

The Social Democrats, however, were given the opportunity to remedy this risk and enable ships to be run on methane in the future and reduce emissions. This was in 2019, when the private company Swedegas, which owns the gas grid on the west coast, wanted to construct an LNG terminal in Gothenburg. What did the Social Democratic and Green Party government do then? Well, they did the usual: the Social Democrats rolled over for the Green Party and rejected this permit application. This LNG terminal would today have been an extremely important component when it comes to diversifying the Swedish gas supply and making us less vulnerable.

Another very important part when it comes to diversifying the gas supply is to increase the production of Swedish biogas. Unfortunately, a German company has appealed the Swedish tax exemption for biogas and biogas oil to the EU tribunal, which in December decided to revoke the tax exemption. We have previously had broad consensus on this issue in the Riksdag, which I hope we will continue with. Neither the government's nor the Moderaternas view has changed since then. Therefore, intensive work is underway to be able to introduce this tax exemption again.

For this to work, a review by the EU Commission of the previously submitted proposal is required, which is estimated to take approximately 18 months. Ministers Busch and Svantesson have urged the Commission to work with all haste, so that we can continue our journey towards self-produced climate-neutral biogas as soon as possible. I cannot overemphasize this last part: as soon as possible.

Madam Speaker! Even though companies are the largest consumers of gas, there are also several households that heat their homes with gas. Several households have been hit hard by high gas prices. Therefore, it feels good that a gas price subsidy has been in place since the end of March, which provides a much-needed supplement to the finances of several families.

Gas is vital for our business life, for many households and above all for the people in our country. The majority may still be fossil, but the way forward is not to stop using gas but to secure our own gas supply and to continuously transition to fossil-free sources.

With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! That was an interesting speech by Mats Green. Actually, this is a much broader report where we address almost all energy issues. But I intended to stick just to the biogas.

Mats Green says that gas has been treated neglectfully by previous governments. I am prepared to agree with that. A conversion subsidy was introduced for which no guidelines were ever established, so it froze. They also wanted to exclude gas cars from procurement of environmental cars, which they then withdrew. It has created uncertainty for the market, of course.

But the greatest uncertainty actually occurred during this government. The price of biogas today is 5 kronor higher at the pump than it was at the turn of the year. That is due, as Mats Green says, to the judgment that came. But it is not the case that the only way to restore the tax exemption or lower the price is to wait for 18 months, as the government wants. It is possible to either go via the EU's group exemption regulation, GBER, which people in the industry themselves say they want to do. They are even prepared to take the risk that it might then turn out that it is not a possible path and that they have to pay the money back. I have never heard a company in Sweden say such a thing before, but the industry is ready to take that risk because this is so crucial.

Another alternative would have been to simply lower the tax. One does not have to collect 5 kronor in tax at the pump. But the government actively chose not to utilize this opportunity in the year-end budget even though it existed.

My question to Mats Green and the Moderaterna and thus also to the government is: Why does one want to wait for 18 months when there are other solutions that could lower the price here and now?

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! What Rickard Nordin says here is not correct. There is a lot on the table regarding the tax issue. We will, above all, make decisions on the tax in the autumn budget.

This matter regarding the group exemption regulation, which C has submitted a proposal on, is not a shortcut but rather a bureaucratic detour that would lead to it taking even longer. It may sound promising at first glance, but it actually has the opposite effect. New laws would then be drafted and enacted, investigations would be commissioned, and it still has to pass through the EU in the end.

There is already a plan that has been started - a few months ago, to be exact. It means that the work lands directly on the EU's table, without wasting time on investigations and legislation. In this process, the government also has the opportunity to maintain an ongoing dialogue with the EU so that the understanding of the support lands completely correctly.

Again: The shortcut that Rickard Nordin speaks of is de facto a long way. That is why we have chosen not to go with that proposal, but we have chosen to go with what most assess to be the fastest feasible path.

But with that said, Madam Speaker, one should nevertheless remember that I am glad that we have an agreement this far along that there shall be a tax exemption for biogas. But this needs to happen as quickly as possible and not via bureaucratic detours.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Obviously, Mats Green is making a completely different assessment than the biogas industry is making. There, they are prepared to move forward with other paths, if not in parallel. There is nothing preventing one from doing both things simultaneously to be on the safe side. There is nothing that says we will have a new tax exemption in 18 months. It could be that the EU Commission concludes that it will not be relevant, and then one has to start again with what Mats Green considers a more bureaucratic path, from scratch.

But the big question is once again about whether it would have been possible to lower the tax in the spring budget to the EU's minimum level. It is clear that one handles most taxes in the autumn, but this is fully possible to do in the spring budget.

Let us say that it had been fossil gasoline and diesel that had increased by 5 kronor. In that case, the government has shown itself to be prepared to do things that increase fossil use. They say they are prepared to lower the price. But when it comes to domestic Swedish biogas or possibly Danish, for that part, which is a thousand times better than Russian, Saudi, or Qatari oil, the government is therefore not prepared to do anything on the tax side to lower the price at the pump.

One does not have 18 months. Those who have invested in farm facilities that today have a turnover of 500,000-600,000 are getting a tax of 1 million. It is completely impossible to run these facilities in the 18 months that Mats Green is talking about.

This is a very serious situation for Swedish energy production, for Sweden's self-sufficiency rate, and for all the things that Mats Green listed at the beginning of his speech which are dependent on gas. That gas should, of course, be renewable. Where is the commitment from the government?

It is good that we agree. But you are obviously not prepared to prioritize this, because it would have been fully possible to change this in the year-end budget. Why, Mats Green, did the government choose not to lower the tax to the EU's minimum level when it was fully possible? Instead, one waits 18 months and knocks out a number of companies along the way.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! No, it is the opposite. It is we who make the assessment that this is the absolute fastest way. Then there are a number of individual companies that assess that one could take another way. Most others assess it as quite unrealistic. It would be a bureaucratic long way, not a shortcut. That is why one proceeds with that which one assesses as going absolutely fastest.

Then I think it is interesting, given which constituency Rickard Nordin represents, with the Center Party's co-responsibility regarding the fact that the gas terminal in Gothenburg did not come to fruition. One did not put pressure on the Social Democrats and one's colleagues in the government base during the previous parliamentary term when it came to saying yes to this. One was totally uninterested in it. The Center Party does not have as great a responsibility for this as the Social Democrats and the Green Party do. But the Center Party has a fairly large responsibility for that one did not say yes and that one thereby left Sweden in a significantly worse situation than Sweden otherwise would have been in.

We would have been better prepared energetically and better prepared security-politically if one had said yes to this terminal. One would have been better prepared from all perspectives. The Centre Party does not bear an equally heavy responsibility as the previous government, but one still bears a great responsibility that this did not come about. That is the truth, Madam Speaker.

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Mats Green, for the speech! I was surprised by the speech we heard. We had an election campaign not so long ago that was dominated by quite harsh and tough words, and sometimes there were claims that there wasn't even a basis in truth.

Regarding this debate, there are approximately 90 motions in addition to those concerning the gas storage ordinance that we are debating today and which we are to decide on. I do not hear a single word about how we are to meet the Swedish energy challenge until 2030 or 2040, which are the government's new goals. I am deeply surprised. I also see that we would have needed a leadership in the government that now governs the country with the associated government support Sverigedemokraterna.

How are we to manage the energy supply by 2030 if one does not have any proposal at all within that area? And how does the government meet the concern that exists today among households regarding how they will manage next winter? No one here in the chamber today knows how the coming winter will turn out in terms of high prices. And we have not heard the government at a single occasion express that one is preparing any type of support. It is about a preparedness for households, perhaps until November 1, 2023. This is what I wonder if Mats Green can answer.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! No, now I feel that Mattias Jonsson has taken my turn. It is we who always find it very easy to talk about what Sweden's energy supply should look like and how we are to get more electricity production. We have a new energy policy goal of 100 percent fossil-free, not 100 percent renewable. Mattias Jonsson is welcome to comment on what the Social Democrats think about the new goal.

We say yes to all fossil-free types of energy, but naturally, the predictable energy types – nuclear power, combined heat and power, and hydropower – are the A and O in this. What did the Social Democrats do there? Well, they shut down nuclear power. They taxed away the combined heat and power, and they tore out the hydropower. All of that is what we are now working to rectify and manage.

It is clear that I can think it is a bit rich that a Social Democrat stands and demands an update on how we view electricity production when it is the Social Democrats who have in some way wanted to play the silent game with the Swedish people regarding how they stand on new nuclear power, for example.

Now Mikael Damberg was forced out the week before last to clarify this: No, we can imagine that at least. Then we know that one is probably prepared to backtrack if one were to ever join a government in the future. This is, therefore, not to be taken so seriously. But it is the Social Democrats who need to clarify this. Shall we keep our existing nuclear power? Shall we expand with more nuclear power? How would that be financed in that case? I hope that one signs off on all the proposals that we have put forward here. Is one also prepared to vote for our proposals to phase out all the totally illogical and harmful stop laws that one has had in Sweden when it comes to new nuclear power?

It will be interesting to see how the Social Democrats develop their view on new Swedish electricity production, especially when they are to govern together with Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet. Discussing new electricity production with those parties is a bit like discussing religion with an atheist.

Then it is the final question. No, the government has a preparedness to handle every situation that arises this winter when we do not know what the energy supply looks like. That is the answer. That work is in full swing.

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

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I hear Mats Green, who continues to persist with the falsehood that it was this chamber or political parties that have phased out nuclear power. Mats Green knows, Madam Speaker, just as everyone else here, that that is not the case.

There was even a Tidö Agreement that one would start the Ringhals reactors, and it was supposed to go without any problems whatsoever. What happened with that? There is not a sound about it.

I believe there is a reason why Mats Green is standing in the chamber and above all talking about the gas storage regulation but does not touch upon the issues that the Swedish people today are very concerned about. How do we get an increased energy production by 2030? We Social Democrats have an initial proposal in those parts. We need to increase Swedish electricity production by 60 terawatt-hours by 2030, and for that, more wind power and offshore wind power are needed.

We can agree and reach an agreement that we need to build more nuclear power. The problem is only that it might, at best, be completed in 15 years and that we need more electricity here and now. The Government and the government base lack answers on how those challenges are to be solved. If we cannot manage to invest here and now, we do not need nuclear power in the future either, because then investments will move abroad.

There is a lesson for the government to learn here. It is also about showing a leadership that is worthy of the name.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! I may not want to plague Mattias Jonsson with too many facts, but I believe this government has said yes to at least six new parks for offshore wind power.

Exactly how many offshore wind farms did the previous government say yes to? Zero, zero, and zero. Those are the figures we are talking about here.

Over the last 20 years, six of twelve fully functioning reactors have been decommissioned in Sweden. All the reactors were decommissioned by a Social Democratic Prime Minister. Not a single one has been decommissioned by a Moderate Prime Minister, but it is the Social Democrats who have decommissioned fully functioning reactors.

Magdalena Andersson promised when she was the finance minister candidate in 2013 that she would phase out nuclear power. The Social Democrats also made a decision on this at their party congress in November 2021. It is not directly a distant time but directly recent time.

I have another question, even though Mattias Jonsson has stood here and said that he absolutely does not want to discuss that matter here today. I have respect for that. I might not have wanted to discuss it either if I had represented Gothenburg, as Mattias Jonsson does.

What does Mattias Jonsson have to say about the decision that, during the previous parliamentary term, led to the fact that a new large gas terminal could not be established in Gothenburg specifically? It was his government that said no to it, with quite significant consequences for his constituency and for Sweden as a whole. It would be interesting to hear a problematization of that.

Above all, I would like to hear if Mattias Jonsson still thinks it was the right decision or if there is room for self-criticism – that it made Sweden's situation considerably more difficult and worse than it would have been if one had said yes. It would be interesting to get some reflections on the latter, Madam Speaker.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

Since it was a closing remark, reflections can be taken elsewhere.

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Madam Speaker! During the spring, I have met many representatives from the business community and the unions, and the messages are common and homogeneous and are spelled out as long-term agreements on energy policy, shorter permit processes and more electricity production here and now. Both the business community and the trade unions say that they cannot wait for 15 years for more production without it having to come now.

The government's goal is that the composition of electricity production shall be 100 percent fossil-free by 2040. But Swedish electricity production is, as is well known, already 100 percent fossil-free today, and therefore I must say that it is a weak goal that the government sets up as a political direction. But it is clear that with a policy that increases emissions, it will probably become a challenge for the government and the Tidö base to achieve a fossil-free electricity production by 2040. I cannot interpret it in any other way.

There is also no interest from the government's side for any cross-bloc discussions. Given the long-term perspective required for the extensive investments involved for both the power grid and electricity production, we have for some time requested long-term rules of the game as a basis for stable planning conditions. This is also something that the industry clearly demands.

We Social Democrats believe that an appropriate initial goal in the discussions would be that at least 60 terawatt-hours of new fossil-free electricity should be added by 2030. We believe the long-term goal for 2040 can be well coordinated with the set climate goal for 2045 and, in its entirety, contribute to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.

Madam Speaker! The Sverigedemokraternas and the government's policy now threatens jobs in the industry. We see the concern within the automotive industry and the new industries emerging across our entire country. Without measures that facilitate transition and new, cheap energy, Sweden loses competitiveness. When parties actively work against new wind power, jobs and prosperity across our entire country are effectively undermined.

Sweden is in the midst of an extensive re-industrialization. We have secured a golden opportunity in the great transition driven by the climate challenge. Through hard and purposeful work and thanks to strong cooperation between politics and the business sector, our country has taken a global leadership in the climate transition. This has driven large investments in battery factories, electrified vehicles, and offshore wind farms, for which we have laid the foundation and which the government has now been able to decide on. This leads to new jobs, growing communities, and faith in the future.

In the western and in the northern part of Sweden, the development is particularly clear. The business sector wants to invest many billions of kronor in new positive development and new jobs. The industry that already exists there wants to transition and develop to win new market shares in the export markets. At the same time, new companies want to establish operations in a dynamic and good environment to build new industries that create more and new jobs.

If the positive development is to continue, more electricity is required. The needs for increased electricity production are so great that Sweden, which last year was the EU's largest net exporter of electricity, could already in four years be dependent on imported electricity instead of having the position we have now. Therefore, new and cheap electricity needs to be in place quickly.

It is extremely urgent because it is now that the companies are making their investment decisions. If they cannot get electricity deliveries in a reasonable time, the investments and the jobs will end up in other countries, and then Sweden will very likely fall behind. Other Nordic countries and the rest of the EU and even the USA are not waiting for the Swedish government base to come with a decision, but they are increasing the pace to get in and run past Sweden. The government stands helpless in this situation, but instead, the government needs to show leadership.

To increase electricity production during the 2020s, we need to establish more wind power. All facts say this. Svenskt Näringsliv has demanded that the government present a program to establish more wind power in Sweden. The Sweden Democrats and the government, however, choose to actively worsen the conditions for just wind power.

In the Tidö Agreement, it is clear that the connection possibilities for offshore wind power shall be worsened and made more expensive, even though it would be important for the entire economy of the society to quickly establish cheap electricity production instead of laying stumbling blocks for offshore wind.

Despite the facts, the Sweden Democrats recently announced that they want to stop all new wind power and preferably tear down existing wind farms. What the Sweden Democrats are doing in practice is saying no, in black and white, to cheaper electricity. This risks leading to further increased electricity prices and to investors being forced to pause their plans to build new factories that would create new jobs in our country.

That the Sweden Democrats and the government are completely throwing the green transition overboard, not meeting the electricity needs of the 2020s and generally lowering ambitions is harmful for the climate and for Swedish competitiveness. It sends completely wrong signals to the business sector - that one should not invest here in Sweden but somewhere else. It also breaks with Swedish tradition and risks hitting the Swedish jobs incredibly hard.

We Social Democrats believe in a completely different way forward. Firstly, Sweden shall increase instead of slowing down the pace of the expansion. Secondly, we shall secure our energy independence. Thirdly, Sweden shall lead the industrial transition.

Our Swedish companies shall export the green solutions of the future and make Sweden richer with more jobs and increased prosperity - while simultaneously reducing the world's emissions.

We have therefore presented proposals that the industry and also the trade unions want to see. They are proposals for shorter and more efficient permit processes for energy production, electricity distribution, and industrial activities. It is about better conditions to more quickly get more wind power in place and about increased resources to educate people so that they can take the new jobs that are emerging.

Madam Speaker! Sweden needs to become better at doing what Sweden usually does. When the S-led government has succeeded in securing a global leadership position, which is important for jobs and future prosperity, one should not let it go.

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 1.

(Applause)

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is incredibly fascinating, Mattias Jonsson, that it is not possible to get a straight answer on how the Social Democrats want it to be with nuclear power. It is said all the time that it is the market that builds or does not build, but I actually do not understand why one is a politician if one does not understand that it is politics that sets the conditions for the market. During your years in power, you have seen to dismantling and not creating the conditions needed to maintain a fossil-free and predictable nuclear power production. It is incredibly fascinating.

We are now in a time of incredibly volatile prices. You have subsidized wind power into the energy mix, and it has led to overproduction. There is a situation where we switch between power shortages and total overproduction. When it blows too much, the industry undermines itself. There is a instability in the system that does not benefit the industry that you say you want to benefit and that does not benefit the private finances of households.

But above all, it is not possible to get a straight answer regarding nuclear power. I heard the Moderaternas question earlier. There have been statements from the party leader since earlier, and we are aware of the decisions from the congress. We also know how you have undermined the efforts for life extensions of existing nuclear power and also for new nuclear power.

But it is starting to be time to give an answer. If the member does not give an answer, I wonder at least what kind of predictable power the Social Democrats are imagining. That is what the industry needs - nothing else.

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Jessica Stegrud for the questions.

In 2016, an energy agreement was concluded between several parties from both the right and the left. At that time, the Moderaterna blew up balloons and hailed the agreement because it saved the possibility of investments in new nuclear power.

Then the agreement disappeared. Let me be clear. We Social Democrats have never proposed, put forward proposals, or written agreements regarding a ban on building new nuclear power. But we know - and it is a fact - that it takes a long time to build. We see a development with small modular reactors, SMR, which are in an early stage today. It is interesting to follow if they can also be built in Sweden. If there are those who want to invest in nuclear power, we have not closed, and will not close, any doors.

What we see ahead of us is that large investments are needed until 2030. What can make it possible to meet the need that exists, if the business sector so demands, is wind power and offshore wind power. The Sweden Democrats announce that they want to say no and preferably dismantle existing wind power. How does that stand in relation to what the business sector says in order to secure Swedish prosperity, the jobs, and that investments occur in Sweden and not anywhere else? That is the question that the Sweden Democrats need to provide an answer on. We lack an answer, and it is demanded by both politics and the business sector.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! Once again, we receive no answer. The question is constantly avoided: If someone wants to build, it is said. But I say again that politics sets the conditions.

I cannot interpret this as anything other than that the Social Democrats are not interested in predictable fossil-free nuclear power. In the speech, we heard about Swedish welfare, successful industry, and that we have led the way in the transition. It is thanks to nuclear power that we got rid of the fossil dependency several decades ago. That is something you have contributed to through your omission, your passivity, the member may call it what he wants. It is dishonest to say anything else, or it is deeply ignorant to say anything else.

I also note that during your time in power, you paved the way for massive expansion of wind power without even tasking Svenska kraftnät to actually ensure that there is sufficient balance and reserve power in the system. That is exactly what is needed. The higher the share of renewables we feed into the system, the more balance and reserve power is needed. Not even that did you do during your time in government.

This is so naive and harmful for what the member speaks so warmly about, namely the industry, the households' economy and our future. That wind power today would be so fast, cheap, green and profitable, there is not so much that speaks for it. The profitability wanes, the depreciation periods are exceptional and the share capital is extremely low in relation to recorded assets. Something is not right, and it is time to start answering the questions.

I also do not understand the enthusiasm for the most important thing for a country, namely energy supply and the electricity system, being owned in large parts by large foreign interests.

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I note that there are no messages at all on how we are to manage the challenges that exist until 2030, but one is completely locked on nuclear power which is 10, 15, perhaps 20 years away in time. It is harmful for Sweden, for the jobs and for our welfare. I am deeply concerned about the policy being pursued.

It appears from the preparatory work that technology neutrality is being safeguarded. But when we Social Democrats say that we want to facilitate the establishment of wind power and offshore wind power by removing the connection fees, you say no. When nuclear power was built, it was done that way, and when hydropower was built out, it was done that way. Technology neutrality means the same conditions regardless of which type of power is to be built.

Just as I have said on numerous occasions, and as I have called for approval today during the debate, we want cross-bloc long-term agreements. When we see what is happening right now, with the Sweden Democrats and a government that governs the politics, so far no one has raised a flag and said that nuclear power shall be built with the help of this policy. What we wonder is whether one dares to invest because long-term rules of the game are needed. And there is no interest in that.

In the texts, it appears that one does not see any point in having long-term agreements. How is one then supposed to dare to take the step to invest? This is harmful. We need to have both a long-term goal and a short-term goal. Both the Sweden Democrats and the government completely lack the short-term goal for 2030, which the industry has made decisions on to meet the challenges. There you are answerable.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the floor.

I may risk repeating what has been said here earlier, but I too am interested in receiving answers from the member regarding the Social Democrats' position on the planned fossil-free energy production. The arguments have been put forward here earlier, and in the motion, the member himself highlighted the need for precisely this from the business sector and thus also from the welfare state. I believe we are in complete agreement on that.

Therefore, I would like to know how the member reasons and, above all, what the Social Democrats' position is on a changed energy policy goal of 100 percent fossil-free energy production.

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Madam Speaker! If one goes back and reads in the report that we are debating today, one sees that it states that we consider it reasonable to set a goal for both the short term and the long term.

In the long term, we want to link the climate policy goals to have net-zero emissions by 2045, and in the short term, we have a goal of an increase of 60 terawatt-hours of fossil-free electricity. We write "fossil-free electricity". It is stated in the report. That is the starting value we have with the short-term goal.

Then the reality is such that until 2030, no matter how much one wants, one will not have time to build new nuclear power. The answer is what is possible to carry out until 2030. Again: In order to manage to meet the needs with the investment decisions that the business sector has made, it is offshore wind power that applies. Offshore wind power, and onshore wind power for that part, is renewable energy. But the short-term goal that we want to see by 2030 is 60 terawatt-hours of fossil-free electricity, and we have a long-term goal by 2045 which we link with the climate goals.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

I think it is interesting that one does not want to say the words 100 percent fossil-free energy production but instead starts referring to other concepts.

I also think it is a pity for that reason that we are in complete agreement that we need to take measures in both the short and long term and that we need a substantial expansion of energy production.

I perceive that the Social Democrats largely sympathize with what the Tidö parties established in the Tidö Agreement. Since I do not perceive any contradiction in substance here and given the demands for long-term perspective coming from, among others, the business community and trade unions, I think it would be desirable if the Social Democrats could stand behind the energy policy goal of 100 percent fossil-free energy production in Sweden in order to provide the long-term rules of the game that so many in Sweden are requesting.

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Madam Speaker! The answer to the requests for long-term perspective is that we achieve broad agreements so that one feels stability and dares to invest. That is what is being requested. Then we can always play with words about what we call it, which date we set – whether it is 2030, 2031, or 2035 – and which goals. But that we have an agreement so that one knows the conditions and dares to invest is the foundation.

Of course we can talk about 100 percent fossil-free electricity production. But as I said in a previous exchange of remarks, we think that the goal the government has now set, to have 100 percent fossil-free electricity production by 2040, is extremely weak.

We have today, to inform those watching this debate, about 99 percent fossil-free electricity production. We think that dragging out achieving that final percentage point until 2040 is a very weak goal.

But we can, of course, look at the policy that is being pursued now. The reduction obligation is set at the EU's minimum level, which is interpreted as 6 percent. You are increasing emissions. It does not become cheaper at the pump as has been said. There is only one thing that is certain, and that is that we get increased emissions but not cheaper fuels.

If we are to take this issue seriously, we need to listen to the business community and the trade unions and look at which investments are being made right now, not look religiously far away to 2040 and not take responsibility here and now for what is happening right here and now. That is what we are pointing out.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the report with the title Supplementary provisions to the EU gas storage regulation, which is based on the government's bill of the same name. A total of zero follow-up motions were the result of this bill. This did not, however, prevent us in the Committee on Industry from producing a report of no fewer than 142 pages.

This leads me to make two reflections.

When there are no follow-up motions on a proposition, it should stand as a clear proof that there are actually things we can agree on. It is important that we sometimes remind both ourselves and each other of that. Not everything is conflict and strife.

Then we have the other more than 140 pages, where we have a large number of reservations from the opposition. That is because we take the opportunity to bake in a number of energy policy demands from the general motion period, and there comes my second reflection: Energy policy is truly engaging! It pleases me.

Madam Speaker! Electricity production is a core issue for our society. It has been for a very long time, but we have been so spoiled by having a world-class system that we have hardly thought about it. Electricity has been a hygiene factor. But in recent years, we have had many reasons not only to think but also to act to restore our country's ability to produce stable and secure fossil-free electricity at a competitive price.

That is why I am glad that we now have a government that is capable of pointing out a clarified goal that all electricity production shall be fossil-free. "Renewable", as it previously stated, does not work if we seriously believe that we will be able to double electricity production in the future.

Madam Speaker! I also want to say a few words about energy efficiency.

It must be acknowledged that it is fun to inaugurate something new. Cutting ribbons is a fine task that many politicians receive as elected officials. One sees the hope for the future, taking its first steps. But it is of course equally important to manage what already exists and constantly improve what one has. This applies to real estate and infrastructure. It also applies within the energy sector. We shall have high goals for energy efficiency. It is good for the environment, and it is good for the wallet.

The Riksdag has decided on two targets for energy efficiency: one for 2020 measured with 2008 as the base year and one for 2030 measured with 2005 as the base year. The goal is for energy intensity to decrease by 20 percent by 2020 and by 50 percent by 2030 compared to the respective base years.

The first goal has been achieved, as energy intensity has decreased by just over 23 percent. The goal to be achieved by 2030 still lies ahead of us, and for us Kristdemokrater, it is clear that the goal remains fixed.

That is why the government has decided on measures for energy efficiency amounting to approximately 1.2 billion kronor during the period 2023-2025. The initiative includes investment grants for the conversion of heating systems and energy-efficient renovation of small houses that are currently heated with direct electricity or gas. This is an issue that will continue to be in focus for us Kristdemokrater.

Madam Speaker! I note that several parties in the opposition are calling for broad talks. I will only say: What are you waiting for? Do not sit on your hands and wait to be invited! The dance is already underway, and the floor is free to step onto. Soon, it won't even be necessary to have a permit to dance. Join us and be constructive in working to create the conditions for market actors to dare and want to invest billions to provide our country with the electricity needed so that we can meet both the climate goals and welfare and be able to continue to be competitive! We do not have time to create conversation preparations where time just passes without anything happening.

I note that in any case, the Social Democrats now sound like a party that sees the value of nuclear power, and then perhaps not just existing. One might also see that new power is needed. I welcome that. But let us look forward, across party and bloc boundaries, and see what is best for Sweden! I promise that the Riksdag during this mandate period will have good opportunities to show its support for new nuclear power when the government's roadmap arrives.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Industry's report 17 Supplementary provisions to the EU gas storage regulation.

We naturally stand behind all our reservations, but for time reasons, I choose to move for approval only of reservation 8, which concerns the possibility of expanding the hydropower capacity.

Madam Speaker! Today, there is talk of science, consequences, and that facts should guide our decisions. I believe that is an entirely correct starting point for politics and therefore intend to devote large parts of my speech to providing the Chamber with a considerable amount of facts as well as posing some perfectly reasonable questions. I will begin with the subject of climate and the focus on greenhouse gas emissions, as that today governs large parts of politics and the distribution of tax funds.

According to the UN's climate panel, global greenhouse gas emissions are around 60 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents per year. According to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, less than one thousandth of these come from Sweden. Taking into account that Sweden's growing forests absorb most of our emissions - it amounts to almost 90 percent - we are already today close to net zero regarding territorial emissions. This is a fact and not an opinion.

The reason for this is primarily that we, as one of the few countries in the world, drastically reduced our fossil fuel dependency several decades ago by replacing, above all, oil with nuclear power. Furthermore, compared with many other countries, we have a predominantly modern, innovative, efficient, and low-emission industry. That work is also constantly moving forward.

Outside Sweden and the EU, global emissions are expected to increase in the coming years. To take an important example, China is today the largest individual emitter. China has just signed agreements for the construction of new coal power plants whose emissions correspond to Sweden's entire annual consumption. In other words, we could shut down Sweden - remove Sweden from the map - and what we saved in emissions would be erased in a quarter by China's expansion. This is not an opinion, but it is a fact.

Despite the fact that we are already largely climate-neutral and despite the fact that we have for a long time had an almost fossil-free electricity production, paradoxically, the heightened atmosphere regarding the consequences of an ongoing climate change since a few decades ago has fueled a rapid change in energy policy in Sweden. This led during the Alliance years and thereafter during the Social Democrats' eight years in power to a shutdown of planned and fossil-free nuclear power capacity and a massive expansion of weather-dependent energy sources, primarily wind power.

Wind power is marketed in the name of the climate as green, fast, and cheap. Yes, the praises and the expectations for wind power seem endless. Wind power is the type of energy that, according to both the EU and most parties here in this chamber, is supposed to save not only the climate but also today's crisis situation on the electricity market, where periods of power shortages are now alternated with electricity surpluses and where stable prices have been replaced by both price records and negative prices.

It is also wind power that, according to most parties in the chamber, is to account for the majority of the doubled future energy demand. It is an energy demand driven by the so-called green revolution - the green transition - where digitalization and the phasing out of fossil fuels are expected to require enormous amounts of electricity. The headlines and the political slogans are many. Fast, green, cheap and renewable; so wind power is described.

It sounds almost too good to be true, and as I often say: If something sounds too good to be true, it often is. So what does it actually look like? What is the situation, for example, with profitability – is wind power so profitable, and if so, for whom?

The fact is that more and more reports are arriving regarding existing wind farms and companies in Sweden where it is stated that wind farms commissioned during the years 2017-2021 exhibit, on average, very low profitability. Around 80 percent of the companies incurred losses, and the others had small profits. No company paid out dividends. The depreciation periods appear, generally speaking, to be far above practice, which means that an overvaluation of the companies has been built in - and this is at the same time as the share capital is often incredibly low in relation to the book value.

As a former controller, I would interpret it as that the owners do not seem to be prepared to take any major risks. To this are often added state credit guarantees and exceptionally low interest costs. Risk and interest costs have thus been shifted onto the taxpayers. The majority of these companies are also owned by parent companies based in China, Switzerland, and Luxembourg. One might wonder why. Few other industries, I swear to you, exhibit the same alarming tendencies—and it is this that we are betting our future electricity supply and welfare on. Is that reasonable?

It is said that the interest in building wind power is enormous. Given what I just mentioned, we should ask ourselves why. Who actually profits from it, and what do they profit? Is it the electricity customers, the taxpayers, the power system, the fishing industry, tourism, the local population, the Sámi, the defense, shipping, or nature? No, that doesn't seem to be the case. In many cases, it appears to be the international, mostly anonymous, holding companies that, despite seemingly poor profitability, profit from it. The question is what.

Another alarming sign is that a good number of companies are now being sold for nothing and that others are making substantial write-downs. A current example is Skellefteå Kraft, which is writing down its – that is, the taxpayers' – assets by 500 million kronor. A decommissioning of a power plant has also been initiated. They simply do not pay off.

A few weeks ago, we also had negative electricity prices. More was produced than was consumed, and since electricity cannot be stored in large quantities, it must be dumped, that is, exported – and then at dumped prices. One had to pay to get rid of the electricity. Is that a sign of a robust and stable electricity system? No, it is not.

Madam Speaker! The question that hangs in the air is how we ended up here. I would like to describe the events - we can call it the process - in brief.

It began with political subsidies that significantly increased the share of solar and wind power in the system. The subsidies led to massive expansion, which in turn has now led to overproduction. The overproduction itself leads to volatile, and sometimes very low, electricity prices. This ultimately means that non-subsidized dispatchable power – that is, fossil power, hydropower, and nuclear power – faces problems with profitability, which at times also applies to the weather-dependent power.

The consequence of this is that dispatchable power will be forced to be shut down. And since solar power and wind power are dependent on weather - specifically sun and wind - they cannot replace the dispatchable, lost electricity, which ultimately leads to poorer reliability, in the worst case extensive power outages and planned disconnections.

I would like to assert that is where we find ourselves today somewhere. My guess is that the next step—if the ambitions in the Tidö Agreement are not realized, which I hope they are—will be that we are forced in a panic to decide to build new planned power very quickly, preferably yesterday. Neither voters nor industry will accept that the electricity comes and goes and that prices are extremely volatile. And what have we won then, Madam Speaker and dear Chamber? Have we reduced emissions? Have we improved our competitiveness? Have we invested all thousands of tax billions in the right things? I let the questions hang in the air and guess that you sense my answers to these questions, which it is now high time for all politicians to answer.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! If it sounds too good to be true, it is probably too good to be true, as Jessica Stegrud said. It is a fairly good summary of the Sweden Democrats' policy. Reality caught up, Oscar Sjöstedt said with now-winged words. Let us let reality catch up a bit here as well.

Skellefteå Kraft made a profit of 2 billion last year; it does not seem to be a huge problem for that company. If there are wind turbines that have problems with their profitability, it means in practice that it is the consumers who have profited from someone having made a bad investment. The turbines will not be taken down. So I do not understand when the Sweden Democrats talk about it being a problem with low prices. Then when are low prices a problem, considering the winter we have had? It is surely great that consumers get a lower electricity bill.

People are talking about credit guarantees. We do not have such things in Sweden for any electricity production, at least not for the time being. When people talk about that neither combined heat and power, hydropower, nor nuclear power have received subsidies, that also does not match reality. Hydropower had government loans, combined heat and power has received quite a lot of electricity certificates, and hydropower has also received those, and nuclear power had different types of support when it was built. Actually, the only power that has been built in Sweden without any government support in recent years are the land-based wind farms and the solar parks that are now being erected where there are no electricity certificates.

The interesting thing about the Sweden Democrats and Jessica Stegrud is that it sounds as if the transition is a problem. It is clear that one can break down China into ten million examples and individual units as well. But it is a fact where reality has caught up with Northvolt, Volvo, SCA, Holmen, LKAB and SSAB, every single industrial company, saying that we should lead the way because it is good for Sweden, it creates jobs here and we can export to the rest of the world.

It is not a problem with the green transition, but rather an opportunity for Sweden. Why, then, do the Sverigedemokraterna want to brake this?

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Rickard Nordin for the questions.

I do not think that naivety should govern politics. I do not think that one should waste the taxpayers' money.

It is well established that we need predictable electricity production. It is no secret that when it is not blowing, it is not blowing. Then wind power does not work. It comes and goes. It gives us volatile prices. It gives us electricity surpluses sometimes and power shortages sometimes. It is a system that does not hold.

We have now increased the proportion of renewable, weather-dependent power in the system. We are at around 20 percent. Looking around the world, there are clear examples of where the pain threshold is reached. Now we are lucky, because we have maximized hydropower and can stay and regulate against the weather-dependent power. But the policy of introducing an even higher proportion of renewables into the system without having balance and reserve power is beyond naive. I don't know what to say. I think it is outrageous, actually.

When it comes to low prices: The reason I am talking about profitability is that we have a very large foreign ownership in the wind power companies. The Sweden Democrats' concern is that one day we will be left with companies that have gone bankrupt and left without taking responsibility. Today, one does not take full responsibility for decommissioning. We have a major problem when it comes to the waste. We now have rotor blades that will need to be replaced. Time is running out, and the wind turbines must be replaced. We have no solution to that question. All around the world, there are large wind power landfills. We have no solution for that in Sweden.

There are a lot of other environmental problems that one thinks the Center Party should at some point take into consideration. It concerns the local population, nature and environment, falling property values and so on. How green is it really?

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I believe that Jessica Stegrud needs to do some reading.

The companies need to make provisions for decommissioning today. They need to provide guarantees to the County Administrative Board, in the same way as nuclear power or others need to provide guarantees to manage their waste.

When it comes to the waste issue, there are new collaborations between Vestas and Stena where one can also break down the wind turbine blades and recover the epoxies involved. That technology exists. This is not a problem. If one is so worried about the waste, I believe there are other types of power that are worse when it comes to the handling of the waste.

It is very good that Jessica Stegrud highlights neighbors specifically. In that regard, Centerpartiet has submitted proposals that municipalities and neighbors should receive compensation. Where are the proposals from Sverigedemokraterna regarding this? There are no proposals in the budget that is currently under consideration, and which Sverigedemokraterna supports, about there being compensation for neighbors or compensation to municipalities that build power, regardless of what kind of power it is.

If Jessica Stegrud thinks that we should have more predictable power, which will arrive sometime in a number of years, perhaps a decade or two, why have proposals that favor that not been submitted? Why have proposals not been submitted that ensure that the neighbors receive compensation when large areas of land are expropriated? Why do neighbors not receive compensation if they get a power plant in their backyard, if one thinks that is reasonable? Centerpartiet has submitted proposals, but where are the proposals from Sverigedemokraterna?

I did not speak about wind power and whether we should have more or not in the system. What I said was that the large industrial companies want to lead in the climate transition because it is good for Sweden, because it is good for them, and because it creates jobs. The truth is that if we do not do it, someone else will. These companies are not sentimental about having their offices or factories in Sweden. If we do not deliver the conditions they need—and we need to do that now, because the electricity supply problem is acute—then they will move somewhere else. Then it is we who are left here with unemployment and problems.

Why do the Sweden Democrats want to back out in the future and not let Sweden lead as a country for climate transition? That is what the companies want.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats are simply not naive.

Why not favor local wind power, says the member - because it is not predictable. Is it difficult to understand? Wind power is not predictable.

Speaking of backing into the future: To naively just run ahead without thinking about all the consequences for the electricity system, the environment, local residents, defense, the fishing industry - the list can be long - and believe that we, with massive state subsidies, will lead the development, is incredibly naive. Centerpartiet can still not answer where all the power in the north will come from, how it will be predictable, and how this is supposed to work.

That the industry is screaming for masses of renewable and non-dispatchable energy, that is not true. Furthermore, there is an opportunity cost. When this electricity is volatile, it is the smaller companies that are affected. There is an opportunity cost: companies that need to shut down due to skyrocketing electricity prices, which these massive subsidies lead to.

I would like to describe the Sweden Democrats' policy as non-naive. We have not been involved in dismantling the planned fossil-free nuclear power; it is the Centre Party that has done that. And now we are standing here with our beards in the mailbox, and there is no solution to it.

The solution is also not to follow up on poorly made decisions with further naivety, but rather to plan, just as we are doing now, for life-time extension when it comes to nuclear power and the expansion of new power. Personally, I think that one should utilize the predictability of thermal power and maximize it, just as we are also helping hydropower to do so now.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much for the speech, member!

I have two questions in light of something the member said in the previous exchange with the Social Democratic member. The member mentioned that we in Sweden got rid of the fossil dependency decades ago. My question is whether the member means that the goal of 100 percent fossil-free is already fulfilled for Sweden's part.

The second question concerns the ownership of the energy infrastructure. In connection with wind power, the member raised on a number of occasions that the ownership consisted of foreign interests and that it was quite alarming, as I perceived it. Already today, large parts of the Swedish energy infrastructure on the production side, for example nuclear power, are owned by foreign companies. Do the Sverigedemokrater intend to submit proposals to change the ownership of Swedish energy infrastructure linked to foreign companies?

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

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

I meant that we made ourselves independent to a very large extent. Not 100 percent – I believe that is a technical impossibility unless one has an enormous amount of hydropower, and we do not. We have maximized what we have. In fact, thanks to nuclear power, we went from a large oil dependency to avoiding it, and that has served us incredibly well through the decades.

The next question concerned foreign ownership. No, we do not intend to submit any such proposals. It is, however, a problem, and I think it must be raised. It is worrying that the Chinese state, and we all know what type of rule it is, has an ever-increasing ownership within the Swedish energy mix. It is a major problem, and I think one must raise a warning finger. That is actually my main point. The corporate structures are also difficult to see through. Even the German state owns power production in Sweden, but it is a completely different matter than an anonymous Chinese company without transparency.

Once again, I believe that we must review this regarding the wind power companies and the structure, and why the interest in Swedish wind power is so incredibly great. My experience as an investment controller tells me that it is due to something, that it is very profitable in some way. Still, the figures do not quite indicate that. Therefore, I think it is important to take responsibility and not just run ahead here.

With that said, the Sweden Democrats believe that wind power can have its place in the energy mix. There may be a need for it, but it must be well-considered and in harmony with both reserve and balancing power possibilities.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to the member for the answers!

I want to pick up where the member left off, that is to say that wind power can have a role. That is how I perceived the member in this post, even though it has not really sounded like that previously. On the contrary, it has sounded from various sides as if one should not only not have more wind power but also remove existing power.

Then my question is: Which wind power in Sweden do the Sverigedemokraterna intend to work to remove? If it is not to be removed, how much wind power do the Sverigedemokraterna consider Sweden's energy system to tolerate? It has been raised in many contexts.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! No, it is not Sverigedemokratisk policy to dismantle existing wind power. It is not. It is an individual statement that has certainly been taken out of context. It is not Sverigedemokratisk policy at the present time.

The next question was how much wind power the energy system can withstand. My biggest objection is that this does not add up. I mentioned earlier that, among others, the Social Democrats – and also previous governments where the Green Party was also included at times – discontinued or did not provide the conditions for planned nuclear power to continue, and one introduced a lot of renewables into the system. At the same time, one did not even give Svenska kraftnät a proper mandate to ensure that there was balance and reserve power, which is a prerequisite for the system to function. It is so incredibly fundamental.

The question, therefore, actually relates to how much balancing and reserve power you have. Since it is to be fast-started, it also tends to be fossil-based, so this idea that it would be so incredibly efficient from a climate and emissions perspective is precisely what I question in my speech.

One must look at the whole. Introducing massive amounts of wind power increases that proportion, and it will require even more regulation and balancing power which will probably need to be fossil. What have we won in the end?

I believe you know my answer to that question. We must return to a sound energy policy, and that is also the step we are taking with the Tidö Agreement and the cooperation with the government. There must be conditions to expand nuclear power, because that is the best alternative we have today. We have already maximized hydropower. There must be an end to the naivety in Swedish energy policy.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! Since the new government took office in the autumn, we have received a completely new direction for the energy policy, and that is very good. The failure of energy policy that we have seen in recent years must not be repeated.

We in Sweden have the conditions to become the first completely climate-neutral welfare nation. But that also requires all fossil-free types of energy - not only the renewable but also nuclear power. Therefore, it is so important that we now establish a new energy policy goal, where we change the energy policy goal formulation from 100 percent renewable electricity to 100 percent fossil-free.

Through this change, technology neutrality is restored as no fossil-free power source is discriminated against. We also give the industry, investors, the trade union movement, and the business community the clear message that has been requested regarding what shall apply within Swedish energy production and Swedish energy policy moving forward.

Madam Speaker! The production, distribution and use of electricity will need to double within 20 years. Electricity production of various types now needs to be expanded in balance while the electricity grid is strengthened.

With that said, we also need to establish that energy use must never, ever harm the climate. The climate transition means precisely that we must stop using oil, coal, and gas. Instead, fossil-free energy needs to be expanded. Biofuels will be important, but it is only solar, wind, and nuclear power that can be expanded sufficiently to replace the fossil fuels.

We therefore have a great task ahead of us, where we need to invest considerably not only in energy production but also in the expansion of both the transmission grid and the local and regional grids. We cannot have such extensive bottleneck problems in the transmission as we do today. We in southern Sweden have lived with the consequences for a longer period, with price levels that have soared and at times a quite extensive power supply problem.

What we need to do is to manage the energy challenge in both the long and short term. In the long term, it is precisely about expanding capacity and production so that we can meet the doubled demand by 2040. Again, nuclear power is crucial and to some extent also the offshore wind power. Therefore, it was very pleasing that the government just a few weeks ago decided to grant permits for two larger wind farms along Sweden's west coast off Varberg and Falkenberg.

Here and now we also need to address the extensive problems we have with the energy supply, primarily in southern Sweden. Here we need to get better at utilizing all types of energy. This applies not least to the potential of combined heat and power, securing the power reserve, and ensuring that investments in the grids continue. Naturally, we shall also continue with the energy efficiency that we have been very good at during the past year.

In the short term, we therefore need to strengthen the energy system, and in the long term, we need to expand it significantly. That is why the new energy policy goal is so important. Nuclear power has a special position because it is the only fossil-free energy source that can both be expanded on a large scale and is predictable. For the electricity system to function, production is required that can meet the demand regardless of the weather. That is why the government is putting so much incredible effort into ensuring that the obstacles to building new nuclear power are removed.

Madam Speaker! To change the energy policy goal so that we can now once again utilize all the types of power that are available is a major and important step for Sweden to be able to continue to be both an industrial country and a welfare nation. We must not end up where we were last winter. People should not have to go around with a lump in their stomachs when the electricity bill drops, and the business sector should not have to weigh in whether they have access to electricity when making decisions on a potential expansion. Electricity needs to be available when we need it and where we need it.

I therefore move for approval of the proposal in the report.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! In the Tidö Agreement, there is a provision regarding a pause concerning the environmental assessments of hydropower. From the Center Party, we consider this very welcome. The Center Party has been driving this in the Riksdag, among other things through committee initiatives and announcements, to make this happen, which the Liberals unfortunately did not support at that time. But it is good that they have come to different thoughts.

My question is very simple: What measures does Louise Eklund, the Liberals, and thus also the government, envision during this pause so that we can get the examinations in order?

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! This review is made so that one can see exactly what needs to be done to achieve a better balance between the trade-offs that exist between climate benefits and environmental benefits. That we moved forward with a proposal for a pause is precisely so that an investigation can look at which measures are required and what the consequences will be. It is about weighing in both the climate benefit and the environmental benefit, hence the proposal.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! If I understand Louise Eklund and the government correctly, the only thing that is intended to be done during this year is an investigation. If one investigates matters during this year, the testing will begin again. If one truly wants to change anything, it requires regulatory changes and possibly even legislative changes as well as new instructions to authorities. But that is what one is not prepared to do. One shall conduct an investigation, and then one shall see what happens. Is this the message that one has for Sweden's hydropower owners?

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! We have previously had a discussion in the chamber about whether one should rush into things or actually see what the consequences are when one moves forward with a proposal. This is precisely such an area where we have both climate benefits and environmental benefits. They sometimes stand against each other. The reason we want to look at precisely this is to see what the consequences are when one makes changes in this type of activity.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! The report we are to debate is Supplementary provisions to the EU gas storage regulation. Regarding the amendment of the Natural Gas Act itself and its side effects, we have nothing to object to, and there are even good things about gas companies being certified and so on. And we probably would not be debating this if we did not have a rogue state that supplies the world with a lot of gas and which commits atrocities against another country, namely Ukraine.

On the other hand, there are 16 other decision points that have an energy policy orientation, and there are 127 motion proposals from the general motion period.

I will begin by stating where the greatest difference in the current government basis lies compared to the previous one. They have staked their honor on the fact that new nuclear power shall be built, at whatever cost.

I would actually like to have a discussion about what significance it actually has for what the Riksdag decides regarding nuclear power. What did the 1980 referendum mean for the decisions? There might even be someone here who was part of and voted in that referendum.

Well, we still have some reactors that work, every now and then at least. But for this world, I cannot understand how advocates for a market economy suddenly, with the stubbornness of a donkey, begin to tell us how we should build new nuclear power, even though the knowledge exists that it will be expensive and that it is a long way off.

I naturally understand the advantages of nuclear power as well. But to tell that one should build or restart decommissioned reactors in almost planned-economy terms is, for me, almost a fairy tale, you should know.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to waste, it has been very exciting that people are talking about waste from wind power. But what was the thinking when one started building large-scale energy production that has waste to be stored for 100,000 years? The Bible has an agenda that is over 2,000 years old, and within it lies a gigantic development of all kinds, possible and impossible. But to build something that is to exist through ice ages and when perhaps new dinosaurs arrive. Yes, who knows what will come or what has existed before the waste is harmless.

I cannot help but object. Did you, the decision-makers at that time, miss something when the decisions were made to expand nuclear power in large quantities without having solved this with the waste? Or did you think: Oh, we'll take care of that some other time?

Well, enough about nuclear power. What does the future for energy policy look like? Cross-bloc energy dialogue is highlighted in a good way by the Center Party and the Social Democrats. That sounds very good. I and the Left Party have nothing against such dialogues and agreements. But when I and the Left Party tried to approach the previous government to reach an agreement on some energy issues, there was no interest whatsoever in that.

Now that I and Vänsterpartiet are trying to push forward something that could dampen electricity prices - which is very much on the agenda for consumers - and bring down these peaks as early as next winter, there is once again no interest in looking at these proposals.

If one pays 55 billion kronor in support for electricity bills and still defends the pricing that has put consumers in this situation, I assert in any case that the policy wants to support the producers' excess profits more than to look out for the well-being of the Swedish people.

I want to clarify for any listeners out there that what I and the Left Party are trying to advocate for is Swedish prices or the Becken model. What I and the Left Party are pushing for, I claim, would stop the enormous capital transfer that occurs today from Swedish electricity customers to electricity producers, Svenska kraftnät, and the state treasury in the form of VAT revenues.

The report we are debating contains a lot, everything from solar power to hydropower, wind power, combined heat and power, hydrogen, biogas, peat and energy efficiency. Yes, you hear it yourselves. There are plenty of ways to achieve a secure and renewable future for our electricity supply.

But let me be clear. I understand that energy policy must have long-term rules of the game for investments to be realized. But again, this government opposes, for example, that wind power being built should provide added value to the municipalities where the establishment takes place. They even gave the so-called incentive study an additional directive which meant that they removed the tool that would have made a difference when it comes to how municipalities position themselves toward wind power establishments.

Madam Speaker! As someone who is half-Finnish, I shall tell you that I was in contact with a municipal director in the Lestijärvi municipality. In Finland, it is currently the case that the property tax on wind power benefits the municipalities. If wind power is built on 4 megawatts, it results in a compensation of 35,000 euros per turbine every year. It is obviously progressive in line with the depreciation and the lifespan. It is therefore this property tax that provides this compensation. With today's exchange rate, it is therefore about almost 400,000 Swedish kronor per turbine per year. A park with 30 such turbines would give a small municipality almost 12 million kronor every year.

But not only that. In Finland, there must be a different distribution even when it comes to the corporate tax. Municipalities pressure investors to register companies that operate such plants in the municipality itself, and then the corporate tax also stays in the municipality.

I did not believe my ears when I called the municipal director in Lestijärvi. She told me that an investor is now coming with 69 plants to the municipality, and it will provide a property tax of 2.5 million euros. When the company is registered in the municipality, the corporate tax will also stay there. There are obviously no figures on exactly what profit this will yield, but they are substantial sums. She said that one actually wouldn't need to tax the municipal residents at all in the municipality. I must perhaps mention that it concerns the second smallest municipality in Finland, with only 700 inhabitants. But it is an interesting thing in any case.

But it is clear – if one wants to use the countryside and natural resources to cover tax cuts for the wealthiest, then one does not want to look at solutions that would accelerate the expansion of green, renewable electricity starting tomorrow.

Madam Speaker! We have reservations in the report, and we naturally stand behind all of them. But as is customary, I only raise one, and that is reservation 14, which concerns biofuels and biodrivfuels.

Emissions need to decrease significantly faster than what is currently happening in Sweden. The state investment supports need to increase to achieve the systemic shift required to reach the climate goals.

In order for new technology to be developed and used, the market needs state interventions in the form of risk-sharing and financing to invest in fossil-free solutions. There is a large investment need, not least within the transport sector. Through various investment supports for the expansion of sustainable fuels, the conditions are improved for the production of biofuels in Sweden to increase and for Sweden to thereby be able to achieve a higher degree of national self-sufficiency with fossil-free fuels.

Then we have the fantastic sun. I must admit that just five years ago I myself was skeptical about solar power. But given my own installation that I now have at home, I must reassess what I thought then.

There are great opportunities for a substantial expansion of solar power in Sweden. However, political will and decisiveness are required to increase the production of solar energy. Today, there is no clear planning goal for solar cells. The Swedish Energy Agency has also not received any specific mandate to develop such a goal in its strategy. If there is no set goal, it also hinders increases in ambition.

Solar energy also should, I think, be expanded in Sweden. More clean energy and new green jobs are needed. For this, in the short term, earmarked support is required and, in the longer term, obviously long-term policy measures.

When it comes to this matter of storage and balance, hydrogen comes into play. I believe that the expansion of hydrogen production should take place in a way that is good for the whole of society and that the public should take responsibility for the system perspective. Hydrogen investments should be stimulated where they are needed most and not only where the market sees the greatest opportunity for profit maximization.

Furthermore, the distribution of responsibility regarding hydrogen between different authorities should be clarified. Research in the area is also welcome, which clarifies what provides the most benefit to society and the climate. I therefore believe that the government should return with proposals on how hydrogen production, energy storage in hydrogen, and distribution of hydrogen can be organized throughout the country. Here, our Vattenfall could be used and be commissioned to develop energy storage in hydrogen in connection with its investments in renewable energy.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

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

The policy that has been pursued has, as we all know, led to skyrocketing and, above all, volatile electricity prices. Vänsterpartiet has, time and again, expressed the desire that we should cut the cables, so to speak - that we should no longer export to neighboring countries.

My concrete question is: What are we to do with the overproduction that we get in connection with the massive expansion of wind power that is occurring in its own right and which means that we need to dump and must export? This volatility, these fluctuations, will increase with more and more wind power in the system. So how does Vänsterpartiet intend for us to regulate?

Another question in connection to this: What type of rules and balancing power does Vänsterpartiet envision? I hear that there is talk about hydrogen here. That is very far off in the future when it comes to such volumes, and it is also very inefficient. I would very much like to hear the member reason around this.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Jessica Stegrud, for the question – or the assertion. I would almost like to start with what Rickard Nordin said: I think the member should study up better. I would like to know where the member has heard that we are going to cut cables and that we would like to brake exports. It would be interesting to hear where such signals are coming from.

Vänsterpartiet has pointed out that we should have a two-price system. You price the domestic demand and production first, and then you export in exactly the same way as today. There are no proposals, and there is no member of Vänsterpartiet who has said that we should stop exporting, cut cables, or reduce exports. I hope the member Stegrud reads up before she claims something that is not correct.

As for rules or basic power, I still believe that rule power together with storage, regardless of whether it concerns hydrogen, pump power or other forms, is more readily available than a new functioning reactor in Sweden. I do not believe that this will be a problem.

We in Sweden, thanks to the fact that we have had overproduction and are the largest exporter of all EU countries, have contributed significantly to other countries also having slightly lower prices. But the price situation we have ended up in has nothing to do with the fact that we have expanded wind power. It is about a terribly bad marginal pricing system, which makes us pay the price that has escalated due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answers! It is not I who have made up this thing about cutting the cables, but your party leader has said it a couple of times. I interpret it as that the party leader's words are not realpolitik in the Left Party, and that sounds sensible, I must say.

When it comes to the fact that we export so much electricity and have an electricity surplus sometimes, the member makes it sound like something very positive, but at its core, it is a dysfunctional situation we are in, which I nag about constantly. That power shortages are alternated with electricity surpluses is not a healthy situation. It does not indicate an energy system in balance, which we have had previously. I want the member to take this with them.

When it comes to storage possibilities and using hydrogen as regulating power, I believe the keyword, which the member mentioned several times, is "believe". There is a lot of "believe" and "think". This may be a desk product, or possibly a drawing board product, but we are very far from realistic quantities for this to become something functioning and expanded, and something that could stabilize and be an asset for the entire energy system.

I believe it is time to stop believing and instead do what we can and know.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member once again for the questions, or the allegations.

I still want to assert that not even my party leader has ever said that we should cut cables and stop exporting. That is not true.

Regarding "faith," I believe that someone else also needs to examine themselves when it comes to what is fact. In connection with all industrial establishments and the transition that is taking place, there is a demand for cheap electricity production, and it must be available soon—preferably yesterday. This is not present in the politics that Sverigedemokraterna and this government are driving.

It is true that price area 4, in particular, has a power shortage. It concerns a few hours per year. This is due to the fact that a stop has been put on many offshore wind farms, which would have solved this. This would obviously have applied even if we had had nuclear power that had kept going, but it is wrong to claim that it has been shut down by political means.

It is claimed that we should push for something for which there are no facts. There are facts that say that the energy system in Sweden today works with volatile production types, but we obviously need something that balances the whole thing. We have hydropower, and it is certainly true that it will soon reach its ceiling. At the same time, technological developments are occurring that we know work with hydrogen, pumped power, and all that.

We obviously need to look at the facts. Facts say that nuclear power is three times as expensive to build out as renewable electricity production in Sweden. This lies far in the future, and it is not what is being requested in connection with the industrial investments today. If this holds true - if one does not start to realize the facts oneself - this policy will overturn these good investments.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

I also have some questions about the pricing model. I understand that it takes its starting point in the Becker model, which the Left Party has indeed developed into something of its own. From a liberal perspective, marginal pricing is nothing strange. To believe that one could separate the Swedish market from an international market is extremely strange from a democratic or market-liberal point of view.

Not so long ago, we received a draft of a report prepared by ESO, which deals precisely with the possibilities of restricting foreign trade. There, they looked at what the effects would be. It concerns the proposal here – initially, prices might possibly become lower, but in the long run, this leads only to higher prices. What is said above all is this: To restrict this, or to in this way create a separate Swedish market, conflicts with current EU legislation.

My question to the member is how Vänsterpartiet views the fact that this proposal does not work with the legislation we have within the EU.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank Louise Eklund for the question.

I will start with the pricing model. The report that the member referred to did not concern the pricing system at all. In the report, they looked at whether we should limit exports or not sell what we have. It had nothing to do with the pricing model. If the member has not met Bengt Ekenstierna, who is the author behind the Beken model, I hope that she takes the time to meet him. The model with a two-price system would work.

Regarding the EU regulation and that system, I want to say this: If we do not challenge the system that we think works poorly, we will always have to adapt to something that is not good for the system that we have in Sweden.

We are the largest exporter. We have industrial initiatives that today do not exist on the map in many other countries on the continent. Therefore, I would be prepared to challenge and test by saying that we intend to introduce this. If we then fail at it, we shall see.

There are countries in Europe that today do not price according to this system, but it is still claimed that this is the practice and that everyone does it. That is not true.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the answer.

It becomes somewhat of a chimera to make a distinction. This would in some way be to talk about a limited trade with energy. As a liberal, I do not believe that it is possible. As a southerner, I consider it would be a catastrophe – as the member himself pointed out, we are a net importer for some hours of the day, and this applies primarily in southern Sweden. It would become very cold and dark if we did not have the possibility to trade electricity with other countries.

One can have opinions about the EU's policy and say that one will challenge it. However, it is actually the case that this proposal, which you in Vänsterpartiet have put forward, is not feasible, because it conflicts with EU legislation. Of course, one can challenge it, but this is actually not feasible.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Again: It is not about limiting trade. It is said that the two-price system would mean that we have two pricing models, but it would be exactly the same price for the electricity that we export with the two-price system. If this then conflicts with EU rules on the free movement of goods and services, I am in any case prepared to bring the matter to a head and show that this is not reasonable.

A socially important function such as electricity production and electricity supply for a country has been placed on a market. It turns out now that we, obviously for many reasons, are hit by tenfold higher prices.

I have used the example of a large family and bread baking before. If I had any production, I would not have put the bread on the market every morning only to buy it back for the price that someone is willing to sell it for. I would, of course, use the bread I myself need at home before I sold the rest.

I think this is a sick system. Our consumers are hit by sky-high prices, and then you have to pay back – today it is 55 billion – on their electricity bills. The EU rules can say whatever they want – this is a sick system.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! The winter has brought about sharp price increases on electricity and fuels. Households and companies have been hit hard financially. This does not actually only apply to this winter but also the last one. Regardless of what we hear in the political rhetoric, it is about high fossil gas prices on the continent that have spilled over into Sweden and about high crude oil prices together with a shaky krona course. With precisely the same renewable content in the diesel, the price has varied between 20 and 28 kronor. The government wants to increase the fossil fuels by 4 million liters a day to lower the price, but one probably needs to start by trying to understand how the fuel market works.

Now, powerful measures are needed to ensure that this is not repeated, both on the fuel side and on the electricity side. We need measures in both the short and long term. Not least, we need to ensure that fossil fuels from rogue states such as Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar cannot cause such great consequences for Sweden.

More people simply must get the chance to refuel with Swedish. While the government wants to increase imports and the use of fossil fuels, we in Centerpartiet want to produce with renewables here. All cars should be able to become environmental cars, and everyone who wants to should be able to afford to become environmental heroes at an affordable price. New biofuels from waste products in the forest, which would otherwise have rotted away, can be produced for somewhere between 11 and 15 kronor per liter while we simultaneously create tens of thousands of jobs. Talk about a win! To secure these wins, stable rules of the game and long-term conditions are needed, for example through contract for difference or reverse auctions of biofuels.

Against this background, I move for the approval of reservation 15.

When we talk about fuels, it is impossible to avoid mentioning biogas. As we heard earlier in the debate, an EU ruling came in December that caused the biogas to suddenly become 5 kronor more expensive at the pump. With government parties and a support party that built the majority of their election campaign on talking about pump prices, it is surprising that they have not cared. Is the Russian oil more important to defend than the Swedish biogas? Something is not right.

The industry urges the government to use the new regulations. If not, it is possible to lower the tax to the minimum level. But we didn't even get an answer from the Moderaterna on why the government hasn't done so. The government is dodging. At the same time, small and large facilities are threatened. Farm facilities that have just started up risk being shut down due to bankruptcy.

This strikes at the heart of green agriculture, but the government is passive. The Center Party has presented proposals that would solve the problem, but they are voted down time and again. What happened to the Christian Democrats' rural enthusiasm and with the Liberals who claim to take the climate goals seriously? It is time to look in the mirror and start acting.

The energy debate, which today's report in many ways is about, is broad but is almost entirely about electricity production in Sweden. The focus is on the companies, rarely on what individual households can do. But I want to highlight them a bit extra. The Center Party wants to give more households more freedom - freedom to choose more for themselves and be a part of the transition. That was why we pushed through our proposal on a green deduction, which allows one to install solar cells or charging stations or install a battery storage.

Now it is time to move forward. One might want to join forces with neighbors to produce more energy together and be able to install a larger battery storage or get better conditions for a solar cell park. Energy communities are exceptions in Sweden, and Skatteverket's rules put spokes in the wheels, just like the solar tax, which should be abolished.

Coming together to solve societal problems is something we are used to in Sweden. We have road associations, fiber associations and fishing associations. Now there is an opportunity to highlight energy associations.

Let everyone who wants to have the chance to contribute with new production or join together in aggregators to, for example, use electric car batteries. Here, the legislation needs to be reviewed and become less convoluted and simpler. Now that we are electrifying the vehicle fleet, it is obvious to utilize all the batteries that exist as system services and other such things.

Centerpartiet has also recently submitted a proposal that those who energy-efficientize or want to replace their direct electricity with a heat pump or district heating should receive support. Those with small margins are today sitting in a poverty trap. It becomes cheaper if one can invest in district heating, a heat pump, or an electric car, but if one lacks investment money, one is stuck in expensive solutions. Therefore, we have submitted proposals for credit guarantees and state credits so that the investments can be made. It is incredibly important with support for those who purchase an eco-friendly car, regardless of whether it is new or used, so that more people can get out of the poverty and fossil trap.

Greater freedom for people and protection against natural monopolies are also needed. Electricity grid companies and district heating companies have raised prices significantly recently, some so much that they have been cast out of the industry organizations that exist to create just transparency in pricing. Consumer protection must be strengthened. The Energy Markets Inspectorate must be given sharper tools. It is unacceptable that companies with natural monopolies can act as they do. These companies need to take greater responsibility for both their pricing and the expansion of the electricity grid.

It is unacceptable that we have ready factories in Småland that cannot get access to electricity because the grid company has not expanded the grid in time. This causes Sweden to lose companies, and it costs. We can end up in a situation where diesel generators are connected to supply factories with electricity because the grid companies cannot deliver in time.

The green transition is an opportunity for Sweden, but the government seems to believe that it is only about a bit of green varnish. It is argued that it is not so important to lead the way, but that it is better to work with the EU's minimum level. But nothing could be more wrong.

It is clear that the Center Party is the only party driving a bourgeois policy in Sweden's Riksdag. It is the business sector that is pushing for the transition, because customers want green products. If the policy does not support the business sector and continues to push, the companies will move. They are not sentimental about the factories having to be in Sweden. If someone else offers more electricity production from renewable sources, better electricity connection or other conditions, they will move, because they want to continue to export their products to the market that demands them.

How can the government, in a situation where we are crying out for competence supply, shut down vocational schools? Instead, these must be restored, vocational colleges must be significantly expanded, and an increased focus on technical education must be created. Without the people who do this, it will not happen – especially not since the government so effectively removes the opportunities for labor migration.

The climate issue is not just about the environment, it is also about Swedish competitiveness. When large industrial companies warn about the developments, I wonder why the government does not listen.

One of the important prerequisites demanded by the business community is comprehensive and rapid electrification. Svenska kraftnät says that in four years, northern Sweden will be using almost all of its electricity. Therefore, southern Sweden needs to deliver significantly faster and significantly more. New production needs to be built cheaply and quickly. The investors are standing in line, so let them build. Make decisions now on the proposed offshore wind farms, government! The two that are underway do not come close to covering the need that exists. And the county administrative boards, the government's extended arm, should make decisions on the solar cell parks. With an approval, Skåne's energy supply could be increased by 50 percent in one stroke, but the county administrative board is opposing it.

It is the same thing with the defense. In our neighboring countries, it works perfectly well to work with conditional permits and radar-controlled obstacle lighting, and they even see it as an advantage with fixed installations far out at sea. In the Baltics, Poland, Germany, Finland, Denmark and the United Kingdom it works, that is, in our allied countries. Why doesn't it work in Sweden? The government must increase its governance of the Armed Forces.

Finally, we must increase local acceptance. I fully understand that it is difficult to have things on one's own land or nearby. Let the property tax therefore go back to the municipality. Let neighbors receive reasonable compensation regardless of which type of power they get in their backyard. The goal must be that every municipality wants wind farms just as much as battery factories. They should compete to get these investments.

Solve the compensation issue for the electricity grid as well! Use the new, less land-intensive technology that is available! It is possible to do this much more land-efficiently. Have tougher management of Svenska kraftnät! We see that very high electricity prices threaten in southern Sweden this summer because the transmission capacity is not sufficient and trading does not occur to the extent that is needed. Here, the government needs to take a significantly greater responsibility in the management of Svenska kraftnät.

Households expect that the winter situation will not recur, companies demand long-term perspective in their transition, and the climate is ultimately just about carbon dioxide equivalents. We have a duty to try to solve this together. The Center Party has done so many times before and therefore extends its hand, ready to discuss with other parties. I hope that more are prepared to take the same responsibility - for the companies, the households, the climate, and Sweden's best interests.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Rickard Nordin, for the speech!

The chairman had in his speech an interesting rhetorical question concerning people and companies in rural areas. It is noteworthy, however, that few things have hit rural areas, small business owners, farmers, and so on, as hard as the pursued energy policy. It is that which has led to the skyrocketing electricity prices, as well as the introduction of the world's most offensive reduction obligation, which has indeed driven up fuel prices incredibly strongly. It has also been a reason why many have left the Centerpartiet in favor of the Sverigedemokraterna precisely in rural areas.

Despite our differences of opinion, I still sense a slight softening on the energy issue. In the EU Parliament, the Center Party is now talking about how nuclear power might not be so bad. We have also heard the new party leader open up to nuclear power. My concrete question here and now is actually: Where does the Center Party stand these days when it comes to nuclear power specifically?

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Once again, I believe that Jessica Stegrud should try to relate a bit more to reality. It does have a tendency to catch up, as her party colleague said.

To begin with, there are basically no voter flows between the Sweden Democrats and the Centre Party. This is shown by virtually every exit poll. Whatever Jessica Stegrud is standing here and making up, one can probably take quite lightly.

When it comes to fuel prices, as has been said, it is the exchange rate and the oil price that have had the greatest impact. With the same renewable share, the diesel price has varied between 20 kronor and over 28 or even almost 29 kronor during the last year. That is what has had the greatest impact.

It would have been possible to influence the prices if we had produced more renewable fuels here in Sweden. That requires long-term conditions. It requires that one has stability and knows what one is going to get. To have a biogas price that increases by 5 kronor at the pump due to tax conditions that are becoming completely crazy because of an EU judgment and which the government and Sverigedemokraterna are not prepared to handle – if anything, that hits the countryside.

The first question back is: Why do the Sweden Democrats choose to let the price at the pump increase by 5 kronor for those who refuel with biogas? Do the Sweden Democrats even know how this hits the countryside?

When it comes to nuclear power, it is crystal clear: Anyone who wants to build nuclear power without subsidies is free today to do so in the places where we already have it and where the best conditions exist – the power grid is laid out, the security is in place, all cordons and expropriations are completed, the land areas are taken, the water areas are taken, everything is ready. It is reasonable to start there if one wants to build new nuclear power, and it has been permitted for a long time. It has been several decades since we changed that. It is therefore nothing strange for me as a member of the Center Party to say: Please go ahead and build, if it is indeed that profitable and important!

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! I nevertheless sense a slight rapprochement here towards the Sweden Democrats' policy, and it is pleasing. Nuclear power is important for the energy system, and the Sweden Democrats are working together with the coalition partners to create conditions for new and also life-extended nuclear power.

It may be so that members of the Centre Party have not gone directly to the Sweden Democrats, but the fact is that our support in the countryside among, for example, farmers and self-employed individuals has increased significantly while it has decreased for the Centre Party. Possibly some step has been taken in between, but the point remains.

The Member of Parliament previously said, which was interesting, that the Center Party are the only ones practicing some kind of bourgeois politics. But the Center Party's policy is based on subsidies, with massive subsidies to the industry. The Member of Parliament himself mentioned that large quantities of green products are being demanded from the companies, but in that case, the customer is also willing to pay for them. Still, there is constant talk about grants and subsidies. At the EU level, a multitude of climate regulations are being introduced, while at the same time, so that the companies can manage to provide the products, which will become much more expensive, they want to introduce carbon tariffs – probably a trade war that China will not ultimately engage in. I think it is a strange view.

It also concerns the biogas, which the Center Party constantly talks about. Biogas has been subsidized for decades with billions in tax money in various projects back and forth. There has never been any profitability in it. Now, the chance for profitability has possibly improved slightly in some ways, given that fuel prices are so high. Then there is other stuff that puts a stop to it, so that it becomes more comparable.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! If Jessica Stegrud had read, she would have known that it was the 2009 energy agreement I was quoting from. That was before the Sweden Democrats sat in the Riksdag. That we would approach the Sweden Democrats, I find it very difficult to see.

There is a lot of free-wheeling fabulation here. "Massive subsidies" - which ones? If you build electricity production, you get no support today - unless it is solar on own roofs, which Jessica Stegrud is referring to. In principle, all production before that has actually been subsidized in one way or another. If we are talking about renewable fuels, we can say that the fossil subsidies in Sweden have been significantly larger, and they have also increased with the Sverigedemokraterna and this government's budget. If one talks about "massive subsidies" for renewables, they are still nowhere near the massive subsidies for fossil.

This is what does not add up for me. The Sweden Democrats usually talk about being a nationalist party. We have an incredible potential to produce renewable fuels in Sweden. It is good for security, it is good for the climate, it is good for self-sufficiency, and it is good for the jobs. Yet, one protects the fossil fuels that come from rogue states like Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, either directly or via detours through Turkey or India, which we are essentially dependent on in Sweden and Europe.

For me, it is completely insane, when we know that it is possible to do these things in Sweden at very low prices if the right conditions are met. Energimyndigheten - to actually cite a source on something, unlike the Sverigedemokraterna - talks about prices of 11-15 kronor, and we have also seen that in the investigations that have come out recently. You show that it is possible to do significantly more.

We could produce virtually all the renewable fuels we need to reach the climate goals with half the money that the Sverigedemokraterna are increasing the fossil subsidies with in the autumn budget. That is what we are talking about. It could make a difference here and now for the climate, for Sweden, for the companies and for the households. That is my policy, unlike the Sverigedemokraterna's.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Madam Speaker! The heading of the report states that the debate is to be about the gas market directive, but as those who have listened to the debate have heard, we are also talking about a great deal of other things. This is because so incredibly many other issues fit in here, which previous speakers have also mentioned.

The Swedish energy system faces enormous challenges. In just over ten years, by 2035, Sweden's electricity demand will double. At the same time, our existing stock must be replaced as it will have become too old. After that, the electricity demand continues to increase as Sweden's industry and vehicle fleet become electricity-driven instead of fossil-fueled. We face an enormously exciting challenge.

At the same time, it is important to emphasize that the fact that we are now facing this challenge is in many ways something positive. It provides opportunities. It is the result of Swedish and international companies choosing Sweden to establish new companies and industries. These are activities that contribute to Sweden's economic prosperity and to Swedish green jobs. These are activities that, in the long run, create the conditions for living and residing in our entire elongated country. These activities are the foundation of the societal transition that we are now facing.

During the last eight months, since Kristersson's government took office, it has however become painfully clear that we cannot take these activities for granted. The conditions that have made these activities want to establish themselves in Sweden are not a law of nature. They are the result of active politics.

The cheap electricity, the state support for innovations and early-stage operations, and the clarity in the climate transition that has existed in Sweden are the result of politics. But the result of the somewhat one-sided, half-tired, and erratic politics that the government is now pursuing has left clear results. Instead of fighting to establish themselves in Sweden, companies are now looking for other places to establish themselves, where the politics provide companies with the right conditions to transition.

Madam Speaker! The Green Party's vision for the Swedish energy system stands on three legs. To begin with, we must invest heavily in the power production that can be expanded quickly on a sufficiently large scale: wind power.

I am pleased that the government has finally begun to approve the applications to build offshore wind power that have gathered dust on the government's desk. Although belated, it is very good news. Finally, we can get the conditions to build large-scale energy production at sea, provided that the companies consider that the right economic conditions are met.

The government claims that wind power is needed, while the government's partners, who are steering from the backseat, are shouting completely different instructions to the driver to stop the wind power and even remove it. But we heard earlier here from a member that it perhaps still is not the party's policy. It will in any case be a difficult equation to put together.

Madam Speaker! Despite the Minister for Energy's words, as recently as yesterday from this rostrum, that wind power is needed, it is impossible to overlook all the proposals that the government has pushed through which worsen the conditions for new wind power, both on land and at sea.

It is about the impaired governance of central authorities, for example, the Armed Forces. We heard from a previous speaker that it has been chosen to remove the part of the regulatory letter, i.e., the instruction to the authority, which concerns the fact that they must take into account the expansion of the energy system in Sweden in their operations. It was challenging to cooperate in certain matters even when it was written there.

Support for offshore wind regarding connection has also been scrapped. And the permit processes remain expensive and legally insecure. The list is long of what this government has managed to do to worsen the conditions for wind power in Sweden.

On the government's table currently lie completed proposals on, for example, the municipal veto and how it could be handled. We are also eagerly waiting to see a whole range of proposals from the Climate Justice Inquiry implemented.

Another indication of the need for wind power, which one says they defend, and that it has some kind of part in our energy system is a huge flagship project that nine countries choose to participate in. But Sweden stands out, as the only country in the cooperation around the North Sea, by not participating in this large-scale project which simply is about building an energy island together.

Wind power is needed where it is welcome, we hear as well. The purpose of the so-called incentive investigation was to determine what incentives were needed to compensate those who are disturbed by the expansion of wind power. Therefore, it is surprising and strange that the government chooses, quite late in the assignment, to make such a tough delimitation of the assignment that no proposals providing sufficient incentives can be developed. The investigator says so themselves. It is remarkable. It thus becomes a bit difficult to get the words that wind power is needed where it is welcome to go together with the actual measures that have been taken.

The Green Party has a different vision. We want to increase the pace of the expansion of wind power and create conditions for municipalities, neighbors, and local communities to earn money from the establishment of wind power. Wind power shall be an engine in the local economic development and provide much-needed money for school, healthcare, and elderly care.

Madam Speaker! However, it is not enough to build new power production. All energy production, including wind power and solar power, has an environmental impact. If we are to keep our societies within all our planetary boundaries, the climate and energy transition must also take into account the fact that we live on a planet with finite resources where our ecosystems are already under enormous pressure today. We must also learn to do more with less. The way we use energy simply must become smarter, more efficient, and better, without it necessarily becoming more complicated for households and companies.

In order for it to become a reality, we must welcome and not oppose the technology, the business models, and the companies that will exist and operate in the future's energy market. This applies, for example, to aggregators, which we debated a while ago.

If politics is to be able to keep pace with the business sector, we must increase the pace. Otherwise, neither households nor companies will be able to reap the fruits of a smart and modern energy system. What does that mean in practice? Well, more expensive electricity for everyone.

Madam Speaker! In light of having worked for a long time in the energy industry, as a previous member has also done, I would like to conclude by underlining one crucial point. The most important thing for the energy actors and the business community is to obtain long-term rules of the game. The companies must be given the conditions to carry out the investments that we all, households and companies, are dependent on to meet the challenges we face in the coming decades.

Just as it is the case with pensions, defense, and the economy, energy policy cannot change direction every four years just because we get a new government that prefers one type of power over another. I therefore want to clearly emphasize how harmful it is that the government, during the last year and a half of the deep energy crisis, has not on a single occasion taken the initiative for cross-bloc talks and negotiations to create long-term stability in energy policy.

The leader of the energy minister's party was previously at the rostrum and mocked a bit - come and dance with us. This is not the seriousness that is needed here. This is a very important issue for us. It should be so for the government representatives as well.

When Miljöpartiet sat in the government, we, together with others, took the initiative for the energy agreement that was concluded in 2016. It was a broad, in-depth and ambitious work with the goal of creating policy that would hold over time and that was broadly anchored in Sweden's Riksdag. It was to be policy that the business community could rely on.

That agreement was chosen by the Moderaterna and Kristdemokraterna to leave in 2019. It became the start of the culture war that has dominated the energy debate. That culture war has no winners. One may have won government power this time, but next time the Swedes go to the polls, one will be evaluated on the ability to solve the Swedish people's various practical problems. In a democracy, a government that chooses to scrap good proposals, just because they come from the other side of the Riksdag, will always lose.

In conclusion – I naturally stand behind all the motions from Miljöpartiet. But I choose to only highlight reservation 4, which concerns stopping new fossil-based projects, managing existing fossil-based processes, and investing in a smarter and more flexible electricity system, including energy storage.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

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

Miljöpartiet would like to see 100 percent renewable in the energy system. My direct questions are: Why? When will this come into force? And what will be the consequences?

There is much talk about emissions for understandable reasons. Wind power emits three times more than nuclear power. From a complete system perspective, it is even more. Wind power also requires infinitely more area.

Wind power is per se weather-dependent and requires balance and reserve power. I therefore wonder how it is going to work technically. How is the system going to manage it? It involves, among other things, constantly maintaining 50 hertz in the lines. It also requires sufficiently large generators and rotational inertia, purely from a technical standpoint.

The committee is welcome to explain how it is to be done and when, if so, it is realistic that it can enter into force.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Madam Speaker! In the energy agreement, the goal is 100 percent renewable, which a number of parties have agreed to. As a result of that goal, a basis has been developed for how the goal shall be reached, just as the member was touching upon. The Swedish Energy Agency has, among other things, produced two reports in the area, which describe this.

The goal is certainly achievable. It absolutely is. But it requires activities and that one simply increases the production of renewable energy across all of Sweden. We also need, as another member said earlier, balancing markets that can handle this. Member Stegrud is completely right that it must be 50 hertz. Svenska kraftnät has, like many other European countries, established new markets, so-called balancing power markets, to handle the new type of power that entered with renewables.

When it comes to weather dependency, one can say, even if it is a bit far-fetched, that nuclear power is also weather-dependent because the power plants are often located near water. But the cold seas that one relies on are warming up, and there are nuclear reactors that have had to be shut down because the sea has become too warm and the reactors cannot be cooled down sufficiently. Furthermore, some reactors stood still just the other day. There are pros and cons with everything, one could say.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! The straight question is: What to do when it is not blowing? It happens quite often, after all. What to do when it is not blowing, or for that matter, when it blows too little or too much? That is the big difference compared to nuclear power. Nuclear power is not weather-dependent. On the other hand, that which the member said is dependent on certain tempered water and so on, but that is a completely different matter.

The Green Party wants to expand wind power all over the country and would like to remove the local veto. They would like to bribe municipalities, private landowners and so on. I don't know how democratic it actually is to bribe and remove municipal vetoes. These are pressing issues, locally. I think it is incredibly important that one gets to be involved in the final decision.

The big, important questions are when this is completed and what one does when it is not windy or the sun is not shining.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Madam Speaker! First, I must correct the member: Miljöpartiet does not pursue a policy aimed at removing the municipal veto. Instead, it is about moving forward that process, which I referred to earlier. An investigation is underway on that issue.

What do you do when it is not blowing? That is a very good question. Say that you have a thousand nodes producing energy in a country, and then compare that with a country that has five nodes. Would something happen with 10 percent of the thousand nodes, is the system not as vulnerable as if something were to happen with one of five.

Complementary provisions to the EU gas storage regulation

There are risks with all types of production, and one advantage of wind power is that it is decentralized and spread over several areas. Another advantage, which the member also touched upon, is that sometimes it blows more than what can be used. That is where the interesting part about storage comes in. There is, for example, hydrogen storage and batteries, which can balance our electricity system.

Already today, there are batteries that offer balancing services to Svenska kraftnät. It is therefore a completely realistic future to expand that type of balancing services connected to wind power. For example, it is not impossible to make such combinations in a wind farm where hydrogen is produced on-site and there are cables that bring it to the mainland. There are long-standing such plans.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be made on 31 May.)

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