New laws on the electricity system

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Committee on Industry continues the debate here in the chamber. Now we are to debate our report NU25, New laws on the electricity system. I begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

This will likely be the committee's final committee report debate during this parliamentary term. Against that background, I would like to take the opportunity to, in my capacity as committee chair, thank the members who have served in the committee during the parliamentary term.

We have absolutely not always agreed on all the issues that have passed through the committee. But we have, in my opinion, always maintained a dignified tone and good dialogue across both party lines and block lines. Thank you very much for that!

Mr. Speaker! It is easy to lead a committee in which all parties act respectfully and constructively towards one another. We are colleagues, after all, even if we may not remind ourselves of that every day during the election campaign that is now approaching.

With that said, we also need to thank the fantastic office we have had during this mandate period for the work they have done to facilitate our work. That is all on that. Let me instead move on to what we are going to debate here and now.

The report contains the Government's proposal for a new Electricity Market Act and a new Act on Electrical Lines, which replace the current Electricity Act.

The Electricity Market Act is proposed to regulate the functioning of the electricity market, and the Act on Electrical Lines is proposed to contain provisions on grid consumption and electrical lines drawn within the area for transport routes.

In relation to the current regulation, the following changes are proposed, among others. New terminology is introduced to adapt Swedish law to EU law and to clarify that companies conducting online activities have a system responsibility.

The tasks related to the operational security of the national electricity system, which have until now been carried out by a system operator authority, shall instead be regulated by the one who holds the transmission system itself.

Two new roles are established. They are the balance responsible party and the provider of balancing services. The provisions on designated electricity contracts are removed and replaced by a system with a delivery-obligated last-resort supplier. New rules for energy sharing are also introduced to implement the revised electricity market directive.

Mr. Speaker! These are some adjustments that are relevant for various reasons. I intend to focus on one of them, namely that we finally remove the designated electricity contracts. I understand that not everyone knows exactly what that means, and if one does not know it, the risk is likely higher that one has been affected oneself.

Today, it works in such a way that when I or someone else moves into a new home and for some reason does not personally compare prices and sign a power purchase agreement, one is instead assigned one by one of the electricity grid companies.

As a consumer, one should naturally always make informed choices, but everyone who has moved knows that there are undeniably a thousand things to keep in mind at the same time. The risk is therefore that the signing of the electricity contract falls between the cracks. It has become an expensive lesson for many Swedes, but despite that, we see that there are still those who have not learned but who simply continue with the contract they have been assigned.

According to Elskling.se, a designated electricity contract can become approximately 30–50 percent more expensive than a contract that a consumer chooses to actively sign themselves. It can be argued that these consumers have to blame themselves, that they have made a choice by not making a choice, that no one has forced them not to sign an electricity trading contract, and so on. But it can also be argued that the market is being abused when an electricity trading company sells electricity at a 50 percent markup simply because someone did not sign a contract.

Regardless of how one views the issue, I consider it positive that the Tidö parties are now putting a stop to this and taking the consumers' side to reduce the risk of higher electricity prices than necessary due to the fact that they have missed signing their own electricity trading agreement.

This may be the last thing we do in the energy policy area, at least of what passes here in the chamber, during this parliamentary term. I believe that we are now up to a hundred different measures in the energy policy area.

It is worth emphasizing – which I often do – that we in the Tidö cooperation went out together shortly after the last election and showed the voters what we intended to do during the coming four years. Of the six chapters that were contained in the Tidö Agreement at that time, one dealt with energy issues. Since then, we have done exactly what we told the voters we would do.

Mr. Speaker! You have lived somewhat longer than I, but at least during my time there has not been any majority in this chamber that, directly after an election, has done as we have. As pure consumer information, we told the voters what we would do and said: This is what we agree on, and this is what we will devote the coming years to.

There have been examples in the form of January agreements, December agreements, various unholy alliances and so on. But to immediately speak to the voters about what one intends to do after an election and then do exactly what one said with a level of delivery that begins to approach 100 percent – I believe our assessments lie at 97–98 or something of the sort – is, for all I know, not known in modern political history.

I think it is worth pointing this out now, as we are somewhat rounding off the Trade Committee's work and the energy policy realignment that has taken place under our leadership. I look forward to an intense election campaign, where not least these issues will likely be relevant for both voters and politicians.

I naturally hold the hope of being able to continue what we have started in the energy policy area. I hope to be part of seeing how the first reactors are put in place, how we guarantee stable and long-term electricity prices for Sweden's electricity consumers, and how we create conditions for investments in new factories, new industries, and new companies all around Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! Thus we clear the arena for growth, prosperity, and welfare even in the future.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 2.

When the government appointed the electricity market inquiry, which largely forms the basis for the bill, great expectations were created. The rhetoric from the Minister for Energy was at the usual level, one might say. Sweden faced a historical electrification. Industry demanded much more electricity. Households and companies were concerned about prices. Issues regarding capacity, security of supply, and investments were high on the agenda.

The government therefore described the investigation as an important step towards creating the electricity market of the future. The Minister for Energy and Business spoke about the need for an electricity market that ensures investments, strengthens security of supply, and meets the demands of electrification.

It sounded as if the government would take a very large grip on the major challenges in an electricity system that is actually supposed to double in 20 years. But now that the bill is on the Riksdag's table, it is difficult not to feel that the government promised significantly much more than what it is now delivering – a feeling that is recurring when it comes to this government. There is a lot of rhetoric but quite little results.

In reality, the policy pursued by the government and the Sweden Democrats has caused electrification to stall. Electricity consumption, which the government and actually also we others want to double in order to push out fossil fuels and emissions and seize the industrial opportunities, has actually decreased. Sweden is lagging behind countries in our vicinity or is now completely missing the chance to utilize the strengths that our country has.

We also know what it is due to: a policy that has worsened the willingness to invest and diminished faith in the future, not least in this area.

Nor neither in the bill on the electricity market is there any solution to the problems. What it practically amounts to – which the committee chairman actually said just now – is that today's electricity laws are divided into two laws. The structure is reorganized. Terms are changed and EU-adapted, and chapters are moved around. It can certainly be justified as a legislative project or from a legislative perspective and an EU perspective. It might also facilitate things a little bit for those – perhaps not so many people after all – who read the electricity laws.

It is not these reforms, however, that Swedish electricity customers, Swedish companies, or Swedish industry have been waiting for. Sweden's energy policy problems are not about the law having the wrong disposition.

It is about high prices. It is about investments that do not materialize or take too long, and about how the government's policy has resulted in a standstill for investment decisions in new production. It is about the electricity grid being expanded too slowly, but also about how grid companies can charge too much. It is about companies having to wait an unreasonably long time for a connection, but also about the connections that do occur risking being completely dominated by data centers, where the value very well can end up abroad rather than in Sweden. It is about large regional price differences, which the government has exacerbated by not building, for example, Kriegers flak off the coast of Skåne. None of this is solved by moving paragraphs from one law to two.

However, there was a proposal in the investigation that could have led to and facilitated new investments, for example for offshore wind power, and which would create better and more secure investment conditions on the market with, for example, price hedges. But the government has chosen to put that type of issue in the drawer.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats are also not quite satisfied with the concrete issue alongside energy sharing that actually exists in the bill, namely that of designated electricity contracts. We have long pushed for a change of today's system, which leads to all too high prices for people. It often concerns people who are slightly more vulnerable and who do not understand the electricity market as well as some politicians think one should. No one should have to get stuck in bad or unnecessarily expensive contracts just because one is not active on the electricity market.

We Social Democrats would like to see a procured system that can simply press the prices in this market. When one reads the investigation, one sees that the main argument against such a model is that more people might want the procured, price-pressed version instead of the options that are available today. That is interesting. The state therefore clearly has an opportunity to ensure that prices for ordinary households and ordinary families could be lower. But unfortunately, the government or the Sverigedemokrater did not choose that path.

What unites the designated agreements and other issues in the bill is that the government, to an all too great extent, focuses on the structure of the law book and relies on the market instead of caring about the results that are needed in people's everyday lives.

Market design must ultimately be about what the market is to deliver. Does it deliver investments, competitiveness, and reasonable conditions for households and companies? It is obvious that this bill has no answer or any solution to these crucial questions.

In some ways, this product also summarizes this mandate period in a rather clear way: big promises but weak delivery, high-flown rhetoric but lame results.

We need an energy policy that removes bottlenecks, shortens lead times, strengthens the power grids, stimulates investments, and ensures that electrification becomes a reality and that the price for people and companies remains low and competitive. We need an electricity market that works for everyone, not just for those who have the time, knowledge, and resources to constantly monitor their rights.

The government promised a reform of the electricity market, but what is presented here is primarily a reform of the legal structure. It is not enough to meet the challenges that Sweden faces. It is actually high time to take energy policy more seriously.

(Applause)

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! A functioning electricity system is a prerequisite for a growing economy. There are no energy-poor countries that are rich and successful. At the same time, we see how countries that only build electricity production and do not take into account the design of the electricity grid miss out on potential growth and competitiveness. Therefore, it is reasonable to look at the whole: the production, the producers, the market, and the conditions.

When industry is to be electrified, when households charge the car, when companies want to grow, and when new batteries, solar cells, heat pumps, data centers, charging stations, and industrial processes are to be connected, it is not enough that we have electricity production. We must also have rules that make the electricity system function.

Here it is crucial – just as important as in the other debates we have had today – that we keep two thoughts in mind at the same time. It is true that we cannot only focus on electricity production, but it is also a false sense of security to believe that flexibility and creative accounting can replace fossil-free baseload power in southern Sweden.

Madam Speaker! Today, large parts of the electricity market and the electricity grids are regulated by the Electricity Act, which was written in 1997. It has served Sweden well in several ways, but it is also a child of its time. It was written for an electricity system that was more centralized, more predictable, and technically simpler than the one that has emerged since then.

A new electricity system also implies a partially new electricity market. We have received a more integrated European electricity market, more weather-dependent electricity production and thus also a forced need for flexibility. We have received more actors who can use, produce, store and share electricity. This naturally places new demands. At the same time, the laws of physics are the same. Kilowatt-hours per year is one thing; being able to deliver every second is something else.

Madam Speaker! The Government proposes, on good grounds, a new Electricity Market Act and a new Act on Electrical Lines. The two acts replace the current Electricity Act. The Electricity Market Act shall regulate the functioning of the electricity market, while the Act on Electrical Lines shall collect provisions on grid concessions and the electrical lines themselves. It is a clearer division between the market for electricity and the physical infrastructure.

The first major change, Madam Speaker, is the terminology and the system responsibility – a technical but important change.

Swedish law is now being better adapted to EU law. Concepts such as transmission system, distribution system, balance responsible party, and provider of balancing service are introduced into the legislation in a clearer way. This makes the regulatory framework more understandable for those operating in the market. It also clarifies that network companies do not just own lines but also have a system responsibility. The one who operates the electricity grid shall therefore not only manage copper and steel but also contribute to a secure, reliable, and efficient electricity system.

Furthermore, certain tasks that until now have rested with a system-responsible authority are moved to the one who holds the transfer system. In practice, this means that responsibility and actual system role are brought slightly closer together, which is reasonable. Responsibility should lie where competence and tools exist.

Madam Speaker! The second major change concerns the balance market.

The point is that an electricity system needs to be in balance at every given moment – the electricity supplied to the system must correspond to the electricity taken out, including losses. If the balance is disturbed, the frequency is affected, and if the frequency is not kept stable, the operational security is affected.

That is why the state-owned enterprise Svenska kraftnät purchases balancing services – for example, balancing energy, i.e., energy used to restore the balance in the system. It is almost audible in the name. In the EU, the actors who provide such services are called balancing service providers, BSP. That term is not used in the current Electricity Act, but the new Electricity Market Act uses it.

Today's role as a balance responsible party is divided into two new roles: balance responsible party, BRP, and provider of balance services, BSP. It is a change in terminology but also a change in the market. The change makes it clearer who is responsible for imbalances and who can deliver services to the system. It also opens up for more actors to be able to contribute in the long run: batteries, electric vehicle chargers, industries, real estate, and aggregators that collect many small resources into a larger flexibility resource.

The introduction of this independent BSP role is delayed. Someone in the opposition will surely mention this. This is due, among other things, to IT-related challenges. At this point, it is reasonable to expect that this will be fully implemented first in 2028 or 2029. The Government, the opposition, Svenska kraftnät, and Energimarknadsinspektionen are all involved in the issue, so we will undoubtedly return to it in other contexts.

Madam Speaker! The third question concerns imbalance costs.

In recent times, high and volatile imbalance costs have been a real problem for many actors. Svenska kraftnät has noted that producers and consumers, not least small wind power producers, have at certain times been affected by very high costs. This naturally leads to production being shut down under certain conditions to avoid economic risk.

This is not entirely satisfactory, and work is also ongoing here. Svenska kraftnät has introduced a new, more digitized market solution, is working on adjustments to reduce sudden cost peaks, and has made its own assessment that the imbalance pricing needs to be updated. A change in that pricing, however, requires approval from Energimarknadsinspektionen and may not enter into force until 2027.

I think it is good that the authorities have identified the problem, taken measures, and are preparing changes. One only wishes that it happens as quickly as possible.

Madam Speaker! The fourth part concerns designated electricity contracts.

Today, a grid company will assign an electricity supplier to a user who lacks a delivery agreement, and that sounds safe and nice. However, it is common for the assigned supplier to be in the same group that operates the grid company. This is not really good for competition. Furthermore, assigned electricity agreements are generally significantly more expensive than agreements that the customer actively chooses themselves. That system should therefore be abolished.

Instead of designated electricity contracts, we are now introducing a model with a last-resort supplier obligated to deliver. The electricity supplier that has the largest market share within a local grid area shall be obligated to deliver electricity to electricity users covered by the system. The customer shall also be able to choose freely among the contracts that the last-resort supplier offers.

This is partially linked to EU law. Member States shall have systems with last-resort suppliers to ensure continuity in the electricity supply, at least for household customers, and these shall also be appointed in a transparent and purposeful manner. Therefore, a Norwegian model is not possible in all parts, as Norway stands outside the union and furthermore has a relatively expensive model.

Madam Speaker! The fifth part concerns energy sharing.

Now, new rules are being introduced that are required to implement the revised electricity market directive. The new rules enable an electricity user to account for electricity produced at a property other than where it is consumed. One can still call that a significant modernization. Solar cells on a roof, batteries in a property, and electricity use in another part of the business can now be managed to a greater extent within a clear regulatory framework.

It does not mean, of course, that all questions regarding energy communities are finished and settled, but it means that the legislation is moving in a clear direction: from a system where the electricity user was mostly a passive recipient – such as I – to a system where more people can produce, store, share, and manage their electricity consumption. It is good, surely, if those benefits also come to the rest of us – so that those benefits are spread.

Regarding energy communities, it can also be mentioned that work is ongoing. The Swedish Energy Agency and the Energy Markets Inspectorate have produced analyses, underlying data, and knowledge support to promote development in the area. This is the background for why there are no reasons for new announcements just today.

Madam Speaker! Finally, a few words on what this means.

For families, this is about the electricity market becoming more understandable, fairer, and more competition-neutral. One should not get stuck in expensive designated contracts because the system is complicated. One should be able to trust that there is a final solution if something goes wrong. And in the long run, more flexibility should be able to contribute to a more stable system.

For companies, it is about predictability. Those who want to build a new factory, install batteries, electrify transport, or manage their electricity consumption need rules that are easy to understand. Responsibilities and roles must be clear, and markets need to be open to new solutions.

Madam Speaker! For Sweden, it is about competitiveness. We must have an electricity system that can handle the climate transition, the needs of industry, and the everyday lives of families. The electricity system shall reward responsibility, innovation, and efficient use of resources. In short: an electricity system that is better adapted to the Sweden of the future.

In this speech, Oliver Rosengren (M) concurred.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Considering NU25 deals with new laws regarding the electricity system. Jesper Skalberg made it very clear what the issue is. It concerns a new electricity market law, a new law on electrical lines, and a proposal to repeal the current electricity act.

It is clearly also about adaptations to EU law and more clarity regarding whose responsibility different steps in the system are. It is quite clear that there are good things here.

We have supported the reservations in the report, and I move for approval of reservation 3. In that reservation, it is stated how we view energy communities.

In the proposal, it is suggested that new rules on energy sharing be introduced to implement the revised electricity market directive. We consider this to be good – positive. However, significantly more can be done to promote empowerment and local anchoring within the electricity system. It is about creating the conditions to be able to build up a stable and robust electricity system from the bottom up. In our opinion, energy communities could fulfill an important function in that context. Lessons from other countries show that when people are involved in the transition, their acceptance also increases.

Energy communities can also create opportunities for idle capacity in certain parts of the local grids, which naturally increases the security of supply. To promote energy communities, we see a need for a clear definition of what an energy community is to be introduced in Swedish legislation. This would make it easier to further develop regulatory support and other measures to favor the growth of energy communities.

We also consider that more economic incentives are needed to support the energy communities. For example, a tax review is needed that makes it possible to share electricity virtually tax-free, and the benefits that energy communities contribute to the electricity system should also be reflected in lower grid fees.

Madam Speaker! I will not speak more about this, but since it is the last debate for us in the Committee on Industry, I would like to express my thanks. The Chairman was mentioning that we have a good dialogue and a good status on what we are working on. We treat each other in a decent way, and I think that is good.

I do not intend to thank the chair yet because I apparently have to participate in a debate on Monday regarding defense, so I will wait until that debate, but my colleagues shall have a big thank you for good cooperation.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! From the raw materials needed for the energy transition and the power production that shall ensure that Sweden has sufficient dispatchable electricity, which the committee has debated earlier today, we now move on to something more technical, but no less important, namely the electricity legislation. It is not just about construction and production, but it is also about the market's rules of the game. That is what we shall talk more about now.

In the bill New laws on the electricity system, which is the subject of the Committee on Industry's third debate today, the government proposes that the current Electricity Act from 1997 shall be repealed and replaced by a new Electricity Market Act and a new Act on Electrical Lines. It is fundamentally a modernization and a simplification of the regulatory framework to better reflect how today's electricity system actually functions.

Madam Speaker! Much has happened since the current Electricity Act was introduced. The electricity system has become more complex, technology has developed, and the conditions in the electricity market have changed. New actors have entered, the EU's regulatory framework has evolved, and at the same time, the requirements for security of supply and clear accountability have increased.

Therefore, it is welcome that the government is now carrying out this review of the rules on the electricity market. The bill concerns, among other things, clarifying the system responsibility. New definitions and concepts are introduced into Swedish law. The tasks concerning the operational security of the national electricity system shall be fulfilled by the one who holds the transmission system, and the roles on the electricity market are clarified through new actor concepts.

Yes, it sounds like and are technical changes, but they are important. A robust electricity system requires clear lines of responsibility. When roles and responsibilities are clear, the conditions also become better for long-term perspective, efficiency, and a well-functioning system.

The proposition also means that the system of assigned electricity contracts is abolished. It is worth noting that there is a broad consensus that today's system has not functioned particularly well. The opposition also notes that assigned contracts have often resulted in higher costs for customers who have not made an active choice. The government now therefore proposes a new order where assigned contracts are replaced by a system with mandatory last-resort suppliers.

For me as a Christian Democrat, it is important that the electricity market functions in a way that is understandable for the individual consumer and that does not disadvantage people who, for various reasons, have not made an active choice. I therefore welcome the government's proposal.

Furthermore, we are getting new rules on energy sharing. This means that electricity users within the same electricity area will have the opportunity to obtain renewable electricity produced at a location other than where it is used. The legislation is thus being adapted to the technical developments and to the opportunities emerging in the energy market.

Madam Speaker! The Government's bill on new laws regarding the electricity system clarifies responsibilities, modernizes the regulatory framework, and adapts the legislation to today's electricity market. These are well-balanced changes that create better conditions for a robust and well-functioning electricity system.

I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal.

Just as so many others have worthily done in the debate today, I also wish to say thank you. This is my last debate this parliamentary year and also this mandate period. I naturally wish all the committee members, the committee secretariat, and the chamber staff a very nice summer!

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is in the midst of a historical electrification. Industry is transitioning, transport is transitioning, and households have also become producers. More people want to be more active and participate in the electricity market, and this is likely happening despite the government's policy rather than thanks to it.

To truly realize the power of this transition, we need modern laws, and to meet the needs, clear rules of the game are required. Above all, we need a regulatory framework that takes advantage of the development already occurring in society. Unfortunately, the government's legislative proposals do not do that.

Centerpartiet's reservation 1, which I move for approval of, concerns something that often falls into the shadows when energy policy is discussed, namely flexibility. Both the Moderates and the Sweden Democrats have in this chamber and in other debates called it rationing. It is not only grossly incorrect, but it also demonstrates the technology-hostile and backward-looking view that these parties have toward the technological developments of recent years.

Buying a bit more when it is cheap and a bit less when it is expensive, and storing it in between, we do everywhere else in society. No one calls it rationing when I buy two falukorvars when there is a special price and freeze one of them, that is, store it, for later. The same principle guides that congestion charges are different at different times of the day or that charter trips are more expensive during Christmas than in the middle of September.

I have never heard any party complain about falukorv rationing, car rationing, or charter rationing – but for heaven's sake, feel free to try! It is just as crazy as talking about electricity rationing when people and companies utilize flexibility.

The reason why one has gotten stuck there is probably that the Tidö parties are eager to talk about new production. They are happy to talk about large-scale solutions, but the future's electricity system is not just about how much electricity we produce, but it is also about how smartly we use the electricity we already have. Every battery, every charging box, every heat pump, and every company that can shift its consumption contributes to strengthening the electricity system.

Flexibility is not a side issue. It is one of the keys to a robust and cost-effective energy system. It radically lowers the price for both the grid and the electricity. For all its sake, feel free to say it plainly and call it rationing, but your focus leads to higher electricity bills.

It is also the conclusion of the government's proposal, as vital parts are missing when it comes to lowering the costs. Energiforsk has shown that it is possible to lower the grid bill by 250 billion during the coming years through smarter management. If this is to be realized, better regulations are required.

Centerpartiet wants to see clearer rules for how flexibility resources can participate in the market. We want to see better opportunities for households and companies to contribute with support services, and we want to remove obstacles for aggregators and other actors who can collect small resources for great benefit.

With our policy, you do not need to think or manage yourself – it is handled automatically, so you do not need to worry. The talk about washing in the middle of the night doesn't matter, because you get help. Your comfort is not affected. You win, the one who helps you wins, and society wins. But do everyone win? No. The losers are the grid companies and the electricity giants. The government's backward-looking ideas become obsolete with Centerpartiet's forward-looking policy.

Today, there are people who are investing in batteries, solar cells, and smart control. Companies are investing in technology that can reduce the load on the grid when it is at its highest. The legislation and market models do not always keep up, however, and that is a problem.

We also see that the government, in its bill, misses the opportunity to create better conditions for local solutions and energy sharing. Instead, it continues on a path where greater focus is placed on centralized solutions and state control. It is strange, because while the government speaks of building the electricity system of the future, it chooses to ignore the resources that already exist among households, farmers, housing cooperatives, and companies all around the country.

We in the Center Party believe that an energy system where more contribute makes us stronger. It makes us winners, and then the rules need to be modernized.

The so-called BSP role, balancing service provider, is a regulatory framework for those who take responsibility for flexibility towards the market. It has still not been properly implemented. It was needed to seriously unlock the potential of thousands of distributed flexibility resources, namely batteries, electric vehicle chargers, heat pumps, water heaters, and industrial processes. It was also needed so that independent aggregators – those who collect all these technologies together – can operate in the market and contribute to system stability, but here both the government and Svenska kraftnät are dragging their feet.

Another thing that has a negative impact on both consumers and producers is high and very volatile imbalance costs. Since a new market solution was introduced, these costs have become extremely volatile. This has resulted in processes that occasionally cause producers to refrain from producing electricity.

We believe that the government must task Svenska kraftnät with urgently investigating and introducing measures that can mitigate the extreme volatility we see on the imbalance market and create a more predictable and stable system for balancing – of course in close cooperation with the relevant actors.

It seems that it has been forgotten that the electricity system is for the user and is not an end in itself. Clear instructions to the authority are needed, because it cannot be the case that a steel mill should have to pay several million because one did not consume electricity during a certain quarter, while a wind farm has an entire month's surplus deleted because one happened to produce a little too much during a single hour.

We are also very skeptical of the compensation model for demand flexibility that Svenska kraftnät has proposed. The model is characterized by both complexity and uncertainties for market actors. This risks creating major obstacles and further delaying the development we have regarding flexibility. The proposal also risks hindering the development of aggregation and flexibility services in a situation with rapidly increasing electrification and volatile electricity prices. In that case, these services become all the more important.

When parties talk about it being new nuclear power that is to handle volatility, they have misunderstood the electricity market, because what causes volatility is that solar and wind have the lowest price and will continue to have the lowest price. It does not help that one pushes in something one calls baseload on the margin.

What would have truly handled the volatile electricity prices is more flexibility. Then you cut the peaks and raise the troughs, and it becomes more stable. But of course – it is a bit more boring to write on a campaign poster. It is not possible to strike blue notes in the Swedish population about how that would solve the problems, but that is what actually yields results.

What is needed is a simple and transparent model that does not create unnecessary hurdles. The proposal needs to be adjusted so that it is possible to correctly determine the scope and calculation method for the financial compensation to be paid to the electricity suppliers to cover such costs as also arise when demand flexibility is activated.

Svenska kraftnät must be given a new assignment to develop regulations in these areas with inspiration from countries such as Estonia and the United Kingdom, which are far ahead and where they have actually successfully integrated just flexibility in the market – even the day before.

There is also a larger principled issue here. When the government's energy policy becomes increasingly one-sided and when there is the same underlying tone in almost every energy policy proposition – that the state should govern more and we should choose technical winners and take greater economic risks at the expense of the taxpayers and households – there is another way. We have had two such debates earlier today. It is about more state influence and less local influence, as well as about overriding the local population – whatever the cost may be.

When politics begins to choose technology over function, problems arise. We risk getting an electricity system that becomes more expensive than necessary. We risk that innovation is slowed down and that investments in flexibility, storage, and smart solutions are pushed aside in favor of politically prioritized projects. It is not a technology-neutral energy policy, it is planned economy. It is an ideologically conditioned decision-making that I never thought I would see from parties that claim to be bourgeois.

We in the Center Party want to see an energy system and an electricity system based on competition, innovation, and technology neutrality. We know that it is more powerful, safer, more competitive, and cheaper. We want to give households and companies greater opportunities to be part of the solution, and we want flexibility to be seen as a resource and not as an exception or a rationing. And we want the market to be allowed to deliver the most cost-effective solutions instead of us micro-managing them forward, as the government does.

Electrification will require large investments. In that case, Sweden cannot afford an energy policy that locks itself into a few solutions when we need all the good forces. We know that Sweden can do more.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! We face great challenges. We need to phase out fossil energy to meet the climate goals but also, which is becoming increasingly apparent, to secure our energy supply and our security. It is also very important for the competitiveness of the business sector to secure cheap, sustainable energy. None of this is being achieved by this government. Instead of taking a holistic approach to the challenges we face, the Tidö government is missing yet another opportunity.

We would need to build an energy system that is both robust and well-thought-out, where more renewable, decentralized electricity production is combined with stable green base load and clear planning goals for 2030 and 2035, so that we truly ensure a sustainable and resilient electricity system.

Madam Speaker! Nor does the government deliver when it comes to energy sharing. The proposals do not reach the stated objective, which several referral bodies have also pointed out. To take full advantage of the potential in energy sharing and energy communities, significantly more is required. A completely fundamental thing would be to introduce a definition in the legislation for energy communities. We therefore stand behind reservation 3, which I move for approval.

Madam Speaker! The failure becomes particularly clear when we look closer at how the government handles flexibility in the electricity system – one of the most crucial issues for the future.

We know that electrification poses completely new requirements. It is no longer enough to just produce more electricity; we must also use the electricity more intelligently. We need to take advantage of storage and unlock flexibility from thousands of resources throughout the system. It is here that roles such as providers of balancing services and aggregators become absolutely crucial.

Madam Speaker! It is certainly a step forward that the government now proposes that the role of balance service provider, BSP, be clarified in the legislation. But at the same time, one of the most central issues is left unresolved. The question of aggregators, the actors who can collect and manage flexibility from many different households and companies, is pushed into the future. It is no small problem – it is a decisive obstacle.

There is, in fact, a large amount of untapped flexibility in the Swedish electricity system. It concerns everything from heat pumps and industries to electric cars and batteries. But we are not taking advantage of this. Why? Because we have a regulatory framework that does not work. And we will not have it fully either after this bill. These are models that risk braking rather than enabling development.

It is very problematic that the government is pursuing a compensation model that risks creating precisely the obstacles that the EU's electricity market directive explicitly aims to avoid.

Flexibility involves, among other things, shifting usage away from the times when electricity is most expensive, for example by having smart control of one's heat pump. Now, the idea is that the person who, with the help of an aggregator, shifts away from expensive prices should be charged a penalty fee because they did not consume electricity according to the balance responsible party's forecast. This may sound somewhat incomprehensible to most, so let me make a simple comparison to show how stupid this is.

Say that you usually go and eat lunch at a restaurant every Thursday. But to save a little money, you take a packed lunch one Thursday. Then you receive an invoice from the restaurant, which says: You missed lunch on Thursday, and we had counted on the revenue from your lunch and made purchases to be able to cook the food you usually eat – now you have to pay for our lost revenue.

Exactly as stupid as this sounds is what the government proposes regarding how we should handle aggregators in the electricity system. You yourselves understand that this rather creates barriers than provides new opportunities. Instead of enabling innovation, it creates uncertainty.

Madam Speaker! There are much better alternatives. Other EU countries have already introduced significantly simpler solutions that make it possible for aggregators to enter the market here and now. In other words: We have solutions, but we are not using them. This is, once again, a political failure on the part of the Tidöre government.

We need a system where innovation is not stopped by unclear or poorly designed regulations. If we are to manage the climate transition and achieve a robust electricity system, flexibility must be utilized, as it provides a cost-effective and competitive electricity system.

The order was great when the Elmarknadsutredningen was launched. It was a golden opportunity. But once again, we are letting the opportunities slip through our fingers in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! We stand by all our reservations, and I believe, furthermore, that approval has been granted to all of them. But I can move for approval of them again, for the sake of argument.

Finally, since this is my last debate with the Committee on Industry, I would really like to thank you especially, those of you who remain here until the end, for very many enjoyable debates, not least regarding the energy issues.

In this speech, Katarina Luhr (MP) agreed.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

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

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