New target for efficient energy use and implementation of the revised directive on the energy performance of buildings

Leif Nysmed (S)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, I would like to move for approval of reservation 1 in CU30.

Energy efficiency is not a side issue. It is a central part of Sweden's climate transition, competitiveness, and future energy systems. It is about using resources more smartly, reducing the load on the grids, pressing down costs for households and companies, and at the same time creating better conditions for the electrification of industry and the transport sector.

In the response to the bill, sharp criticism is directed at the government's proposal. Among other things, Eneff, the Energy Efficiency Association, points out that the government's goal formulation is vague and unclear and that it can be perceived as that the issue is not prioritized.

Mr. Speaker! This is serious. The Government is now proposing a non-binding qualitative goal that is not measurable, while support for energy efficiency has been removed since previously. Unlike the Government's proposal, we also note that the current quantitative goal supports Sweden's opportunities to contribute to achieving the EU's collective target.

In line with a number of referral bodies, we are of the opinion that the goal should contain quantitative goal formulations in order to be governing and capable of being followed up. How can a goal be followed up if it is not measurable? And when is energy use in Sweden actually efficient? These are questions that the government does not provide any clear answers to.

This is not some academic discussion about word choice. It is about the management of Swedish energy policy. The government wants to replace today's quantitative goals with a qualitative goal that is not quantified. The result risks being that Sweden is left without both a clear direction and clear tools.

It is difficult to understand the logic. When the government talks about nuclear power, there are clear goals. Then there are sub-goals, billion-kronor in support, coordinators, and credit guarantees. But when it comes to energy efficiency, which according to international analyses contributes with significantly larger energy savings in the system, there is a lack of both clear goals and clear investments.

Mr. Speaker! The proposition also contains reasoning suggesting that energy efficiency would be an obstacle to electrification. But the criticism from several referral bodies is clear: Efficiency is, on the contrary, an enabler for electrification. It is quite obvious. If we use energy more smartly, the load on the power grid is reduced, peak loads can be leveled out, and more electricity can be used where it is truly needed.

The Energy Authority has assessed that the potential for energy efficiency amounts to between 20 and 25 terawatt-hours by the year 2030. These are enormous amounts of energy. Failing to take advantage of that potential is expensive, both for Sweden and for Swedish taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker! Criticism is also directed at the fact that the government does not clearly show how Sweden will live up to its international commitments. Sweden has commitments through the EU's energy efficiency directive, the directive on the energy performance of buildings, and the agreements from COP 28. But there is a lack of a clear analysis of how the goals are actually to be reached. This creates uncertainty, and uncertainty is bad for investments, innovation, and Swedish companies.

When it comes to energy declarations, another important problem is raised, namely the supervision. Today, it is primarily checked whether there is an energy declaration, but the quality of the declarations is not examined in practice. This is serious, because energy declarations are used today by banks, in property valuations, and in negotiations regarding loans and interest rates. If the quality is low, the credibility of the entire system is undermined.

Several referral bodies have also pointed out that it is unclear what counts as a renovation and that the definition is too narrow. Furthermore, they have also stated that there is a risk that certain energy impacts will be missed and that the changes lead to ambiguities for those who apply the law. Therefore, we propose that a review point should be introduced after three years to examine the new rules in the law on energy declarations for buildings once they have entered into force and to see how this has developed.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats share the view that Sweden needs clear and measurable goals, long-term action plans, better coordination, and a policy that makes energy efficiency a strategic part of the climate transition. But it is not just about climate policy. Energy efficiency creates resource efficiency and is of great importance for building a more sustainable society with an increased rate of electrification, strengthened competitiveness, and lower electricity costs for ordinary people. It is better to invest in energy-efficient houses than to fire for the crows. It will ultimately only be unnecessarily expensive for households.

That is why it is problematic when the government chooses ambiguity over clarity and when ambition is traded for general formulations. Sweden needs an energy policy that holds together. It is about electrification, energy efficiency, the industry's needs, household finances, and the climate goals. That requires clear goals, clear priorities, and a government that shows leadership.

We can observe that the government's policy in this area is not sufficient. Quantitative target formulations are needed to promote energy efficiency in society. Therefore, we believe that the government should return to the Riksdag with a proposal for a new goal for efficient energy use. That goal shall have quantitative target formulations that enable measurability and follow-up, as well as ensure that Sweden lives up to its commitments in the climate area.

Mr. Speaker! When we energy-efficientize housing in the right way, we do three things simultaneously: we lower people's housing costs, we improve the homes, and we create jobs here in Sweden. Against that background, we believe that the government's proposal for a new goal for efficient energy use should be rejected. I move again for approval of reservation 1 in the report.

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! At the end of last year, I visited the municipal housing company Örebrobostäder. Örebrobostäder has made an impressive journey in energy-efficiently upgrading its property portfolio. By working systematically and data-driven, the company has significantly reduced both electricity, heating, and water consumption.

The first experience from Örebro is that it is rarely the large changes that yield the greatest gains, but rather the systematic and continuous optimization work and that the work is data-driven.

The second experience is that if you do the right things, energy efficiency is not something that costs money; it is investments that pay for themselves. In ten years, Örebrobostäder halved its electricity consumption, and now it is down to almost one third. Roughly speaking, the annual savings are 120 million kronor through investments of 200 million kronor.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden shall be a country where climate transition and growth go hand in hand and where we use energy more smartly, build more sustainably and at the same time strengthen people's freedom and the competitiveness in the Swedish economy. The construction and real estate sector accounts for a significant part of the energy use in our society, and therefore it is reasonable that we set requirements for better energy efficiency. But then we also need to have a functional regulatory framework.

Mr. Speaker! Fundamentally, we Moderates were skeptical as to whether rules regarding the energy performance of buildings are even an EU competence. We believe that it is an issue that should primarily be decided at the national level. Therefore, we voted against during the subsidiarity check of this matter.

Since it has now become a directive at the EU level, our main focus has been that the implementation of the regulatory framework in Sweden should be as functional and flexible as possible. The directive as such has also become significantly more reasonable than it was in the original proposals.

But to speak plainly: Swedish buildings are not the problem. Even though there is great potential in making further energy efficiency improvements, the major energy thieves are down in Europe. Also, the buildings in Sweden that have the worst performance are, in a European context, exemplary.

That is why we Moderates have been keen to ensure that the government's proposal to implement the EU's directive on the energy performance of buildings is well-balanced. They must not create unnecessary red tape and, above all, must not force through renovations that are not economically or life-cycle justifiable.

This also goes hand in hand with the matter we will debate later this week, regarding being able to make changes to buildings more easily. This means, among other things, that one can extend a house's lifespan and more easily carry out energy efficiency measures while renovating the building or changing its use.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is at the forefront in the climate transition in general and in the energy efficiency of buildings in particular. The strongest driving force is fundamentally pure business benefit for the property owner, as energy-efficient buildings provide lower costs and higher customer benefit – just as the example with Örebrobostäder shows. It is through technological development, innovation, investments and smarter regulations, not through symbolic politics, that Sweden continues to be a pioneering country.

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

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, David Josefsson, for the speech! The Swedish Energy Agency has calculated how large the potential for energy efficiency is in Sweden. Up to 2030, the potential is 20–25 terawatt-hours. That is as much as Forsmark produces per year. It is, therefore, a large sum.

The Climate Policy Council has looked at the government's entire climate policy, including the policy for energy efficiency, and concludes that it is a very low-priority policy area. They call for figures and measurability for energy efficiency, concrete reforms, and incentives for energy efficiency. The Climate Policy Council believes that this is an important piece of the puzzle in Sweden's climate transition precisely so that the energy system can be relieved, so that electricity can be used in other areas where it is needed, such as the electrification of the vehicle fleet and the transition of industry. Much electricity is needed there, and then we need to improve energy efficiency in every way.

The Council argues that decisions have also been made that directly counteract energy efficiency through various concessions. It points out that if concessions are needed, they should be targeted at vulnerable groups and vulnerable households with poor finances, but in such a way that the incentives for energy efficiency are simultaneously maintained.

My question to the member is whether they will take their responsibility and introduce a quantified target for energy efficiency that can also be followed up, so that we know how the work with energy efficiency is progressing.

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Amanda Palmstierna, for the question! I do perceive it as somewhat rhetorical. That is where the political debate in this matter stands.

The government does not think that the quantitative goal we have had has worked. Therefore, we are moving to a qualitative goal. It is very difficult to quantify a goal, because one has somewhat different purposes.

One objective is to reduce climate emissions. In that case, we may need to electrify more. If one replaces another form of heating with a heat pump, one might increase the electricity consumption in the property while simultaneously reducing emissions and energy consumption.

We think it is difficult to have a quantitative goal. If one is to have a quantitative goal that includes all these factors, it becomes very complex. Then it becomes very difficult both to measure and, perhaps above all, to steer towards the goal.

We think that the most important thing here is actually to enable energy efficiency. It is also about enabling the reuse of properties, extending the lifespan of properties, and enabling more efficient use. It is about enabling innovation and new ways of working. Then we should not regulate in detail or set goals that force renovations that are neither economically nor life-cycle justifiable.

What we do is implement this so that it steers towards more energy efficiency and also enables innovation and more efficient ways to use technology in the property.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, David Josefsson, for the answer! That we in the Green Party think it is very good to develop a smart goal that also enables the transition, and the Climate Policy Council also thinks that is good. But to say that one therefore cannot put figures on the goal becomes very strange. We would like to see a smart goal, but it needs to be quantified. There, I trust the Climate Policy Council's assessment more than the Tidö government's assessment.

I am not surprised by the answer. The member says that you want to enable energy efficiency. But at the same time, you have removed support for energy efficiency for multi-family buildings. You have made several types of concessions that directly counteract energy efficiency. This is also stated in the Climate Policy Council's report.

Now, perhaps the government parties have not studied the report so closely. Your appointed Minister for Climate and Environment was not even present to receive it, which I think sends a clear signal that this is not a priority.

Two weeks ago, we also had a national workshop together with the EU Commission here in the Riksdag, where we met leaders within the energy industry. It was a direct contact with the Commission. There were researchers there. None of the Tidö government's members showed up at the workshop, but Miljöpartiet was a co-organizer, and Members of Parliament from the opposition were also there. The message from the workshop was very clear: Sweden must take energy efficiency seriously. Our contribution is not sufficient to contribute to the EU's goals.

You usually want to harmonize Swedish climate policy with the EU goals, but that is not the case in this instance. It would be an increase in ambition, so therefore it is probably not interesting.

My question is again: Will you ensure that you actually follow the EU policy and quantify a smart goal for energy efficiency?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Amanda Palmstierna, for the question! There are very many workshops that one can attend. But the interesting thing is actually to be out in reality and meet real estate companies and builders and consider how we can facilitate energy efficiency in buildings.

What is driving this here is, I believe, not political goals or political detailed regulation. It is that it is actually economically justifiable to carry out energy efficiency measures. Then the regulatory framework should not set obstacles for that. Then the regulatory frameworks should not make it harder to improve energy efficiency.

What I have been worried about regarding the implementation of the directive is that one sets up a lot of regulations that force measures, not because they are economically or climatically justifiable, but because they follow certain time limits. If one also fuels this with specific subsidies, one also drives away from the investments that are economically justifiable and that are already being made. Örebrobostäder is a clear example. There are a number of property owners all over Sweden who do this because it is actually economically justifiable. Instead, one steers towards such things that we subsidize with tax money. I believe that it would be very unfortunate.

When talking to property owners and builders, one hears that they think there are a number of rules that make the whole thing very difficult. We have changed this now. We are making it simpler with building permits for certain measures. Later this week, we will have a debate on a proposal that one should be able to make changes to buildings in a simpler way. The reasons behind this are about extending the lifespan but actually also about being able to energy-efficient the properties.

There is a political dividing line here, Madam Speaker. We believe that those who own the buildings know best. We do not believe in political detailed regulation or in subsidies. That is what they do on the other side.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to energy efficiency, it is quite clear that there is no molecule that creates energy that is more efficient than the one you do not need to use. That is how it is. We are all surely in agreement about that.

Madam Speaker! I will begin with something that struck me when I came here to Stockholm in 2014. I visited a restaurant here in the city – I won't say where. They had simple window panes at the restaurant! I had to feel if it really was just a pane.

At my home, simple window panes were arranged in the 1950s. Even in the barn, we had three window panes. But here in the big city, it is simple window panes at a restaurant. This struck me, and it is indeed appropriate that one looks at this.

Just as Amanda Palmstierna says, this regarding energy efficiency can become really big. What we are talking about today is only a small part. But when we compare the saved energy with a reactor, we are talking big, obviously.

Let me come to the topic now. Energy efficiency is not only an important part of the EU's energy policy. It is also a crucial issue for Sweden's future. By using electrical energy more intelligently, we create resource efficiency, strengthen our competitiveness, and build a more sustainable society. At the same time, we can meet the increasing electrification and contribute to lower electricity costs for both households and companies. There is much to say here about how we price our electricity, but I will refrain from that this time because it is not supposed to be about that.

That is why the government's proposal for a new goal for efficient energy use is problematic. The government wants to replace today's quantitative and measurable goals with a qualitative goal that is neither clear nor possible to monitor, and this has been raised previously here in the speaker's chair. At the same time, previous support for energy efficiency has been removed.

We share the criticism that several referral bodies have expressed. A goal without clear figures and indicators risks creating ambiguity and making it more difficult to steer the work on energy efficiency. Without measurability, it also becomes difficult to evaluate whether the policy actually yields results. It is therefore good that it has been raised that in a few years' time, one should look at whether it is even moving forward at all.

The government's proposal also risks hindering Sweden's opportunities to live up to its climate commitments within the EU and internationally.

The current quantitative target contributes more clearly to the EU's common goal and gives Sweden better conditions to take responsibility in climate work. Vänsterpartiet therefore argues that the government's proposal should be rejected. Sweden needs, instead, a new goal for efficient energy use that is quantitatively measurable and possible to follow up. Such a goal creates clarity, drives development forward, and strengthens both climate policy and Swedish competitiveness.

Against this background, I would like to move for approval of reservation 1.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Sweden stands in the middle of a historical energy transition – not only because there is a crisis in the Strait of Hormuz but because we have a climate crisis. We shall replace the oil, and we shall replace the fossil. We shall utilize bioenergy, and above all, we shall electrify industry, transport, and large parts of society. This strengthens our competitiveness, and it reduces our emissions. It is a transition that requires more electricity and more bioenergy, but above all, it requires that we use energy more intelligently.

For the Centre Party, energy efficiency is not a side issue, but it is a crucial part of the solution. Every kilowatt-hour – whether it comes from electricity, bioenergy or something else – that is used more intelligently means a gain. It results in more energy available for new jobs, for new industry and for strengthened competitiveness across the entire country.

It is not about people having to freeze or shower for shorter periods, or about companies having to slow down development. On the contrary, it is about creating an energy system that is efficient, robust, and modern. With more efficient use, costs are lowered. More electricity, bioenergy, and other things remain compared to the alternative.

Simple economic theory says that if we then increase the supply – because there is more left over – the price also falls. This happens significantly faster than we can produce new production. Those who want the Swedish people to have lower electricity bills should place the greatest focus on smart energy use.

In the referral, the government's proposal on a new goal for efficient energy use and several changes linked to the energy performance of buildings is addressed. It is good that energy efficiency is more clearly linked to electrification, flexibility, and energy storage. It is also good that energy renovations and improved energy declarations are highlighted in the bill.

The potential here is enormous, as Swedish buildings account for a very large part of our energy consumption. Through smarter control, better insulation, efficient ventilation, local energy production and digital solutions, the energy demand can be significantly reduced while people's living environment is improved.

At its core, this is a question of freedom, because when energy use becomes more efficient, households and companies become less vulnerable to high prices, disruptions, and the morning keys of authoritarian leaders. We are simply building a more resilient society. This means lower costs for households, strengthened competitiveness for companies, and reduced strain on the electricity system. It also means that new electricity and biofuels can be used where they do the most good.

That is also why it is so tragic that the government is squandering the chance. When one abandons the quantitative goal, which can be measured, and replaces the clear and trackable goals we had with an unclear goal without indicators and sub-goals, it is to go backwards.

It is not enough with a good direction. Measurability is required, otherwise we do not release the potential and get these benefits. We then do not realize the 20–25 terawatt-hours that the Energy Agency says exist in profitable potential.

Let's be honest. There is only one reason why the government scrapped the previous goal and is now coming back with this one. It is about the fact that the old goal disadvantaged nuclear power. The energy that is cooled away in the seawater at the reactors was included, and nuclear power lost on that. Instead of adjusting that problem – and it was a problem, that is obvious – they threw everything out.

If we are to release the potential in the efficiency, it requires clear signals to the market and to property owners, municipalities, and companies. Investments do not happen out of goodwill. They happen when the rules of the game are long-term and predictable, and they are not now.

A purely qualitative goal is too vague. The Centre Party therefore wants the government to return with a quantitative efficiency goal that includes relevant sub-goals, indicators, and clear follow-up. We therefore move for approval of reservation 2 in the report. It is not about symbol politics, but it is about governance. When we measure results, we can see which reforms work, which investments yield results, and where further efforts are needed.

We must also talk about the economic potential of the efficiencies, because in the debate on energy that I often lead – and which I led at the Kistamässan, which I have just come from – we almost always end up in new electricity production.

New electricity production is also needed, but the cheapest and fastest energy – and capacity – is often that which never needs to be used. In that case, it is good that one focuses more on flexibility, but one must also present measures to increase flexibility.

Efficiencies can reduce peak loads, cut costs, and postpone expensive investments in, for example, grid expansions. For many companies, efficiencies can be the difference between being able to expand and having to say no to new investments. For a municipality, it can be the difference between saying yes to a new residential area because there is capacity in the grid, and being forced to say no.

The potential in efficiencies regarding cutting peak loads is significantly greater than all of the government's nuclear power initiatives. Furthermore, they can be realized in the next mandate period – not decades into the future. For homeowners, housing cooperatives, and rural entrepreneurs, these lower energy costs can create entirely new economic opportunities.

We also have a significant innovation potential here in Sweden. We have good opportunities to become leaders in smart energy management, digital property optimization, energy storage, and sustainable building solutions. We have engineers in Sweden who can do this. We have the technology that can do it, and we have the companies that can do it, but if we refuse to let the political will break through, it will not happen.

We have this knowledge. We have energy communities, and we have skilled private individuals. They can create export opportunities, new companies, and green jobs across the entire country. That is also why we need climate declarations on buildings that mean something and are worth working towards, and not the paper trail that we have ended up with today.

We in the Center Party know that it is possible to combine an energy system with growth and responsibility where we get more fossil-free energy and faster electrification and where we use bioenergy where it does the most good and is most efficient. We also need a much greater focus on how we use the energy we have.

Energy efficiency is not a barrier to development. It is an enabler of development. It is not rationing, which we have heard representatives of the Moderates say and which we heard representatives of the Sverigedemokraterna say as recently as half an hour ago. It is not rationing, but it is optimization.

Sweden can become a world leader here. The Centre Party will push for that development, because I know that Sweden can do more.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam Speaker! Members and listeners! Today, the Riksdag votes on whether to slaughter – or save – Sweden's quantified goals for efficient energy use.

The government has presented a bill to abolish all figures in this matter, and there is no follow-up on the ground. A few poetic sentences shall guide the entirety of Sweden's work with saving energy. This is being done at the same time as there is potential to save 20–25 terawatt-hours of electricity in the short term, already by 2030. That is, just as much as the Forsmark nuclear power plant produces per year.

For nuclear power, the Tidö government obviously has a clear quantified goal, but energy efficiency must settle for some vague sentences. It is both irresponsible and risky. A united opposition rejects the Tidö government's proposal today and calls for an ambitious and quantified goal. For Miljöpartiet, the reasons for this are many.

The first reason is reduced climate emissions. At COP 28, Sweden signed a global political commitment to double the rate of efficiency by 2030. Despite that, the government now chooses to remove the Swedish goal for more efficient energy use – less than two and a half years after the climate summit. It is not possible to travel around the world and promise things at summits and then go home and ignore carrying them out. It is not credible.

The second reason is increased security. Efficient energy use has come into a new light against the background of the conflict in the Strait of Hormuz. In order for us to be able to rid ourselves of fossil fuel dependency, we need large amounts of electricity. The vehicle fleet needs to be electrified, and the industry needs to be converted. There is a very large need for electricity there, which makes it senseless to waste. We must improve energy efficiency to free up electricity so that it can be used where it is truly needed.

The third reason is reduced costs. Energy efficiency reduces electricity consumption and costs in one's own home and business, but it also saves costs for the neighbor. Load during peak periods drives up the electricity price, and energy efficiency reduces the load during the peaks. Therefore, it becomes cheaper in the entire electricity grid. It is the fastest way to both lower costs and provide a more secure energy supply.

We in Miljöpartiet propose several measures for energy efficiency. We want a national action plan for energy efficiency to be developed, and we want companies as well as all types of buildings to be covered by a support for energy efficiency. It should not only apply to villas and small houses, as it does today, but also to multi-family buildings – rental apartments and condominiums.

Madam Speaker! I also want to dwell a little bit on energy declarations, as they are an important tool in the work of energy efficiency. They do, however, need to be developed. They need to be tailored to each building so that they truly become cost-effective. Action proposals are needed based on each building's specific conditions.

For the properties that need extensive energy efficiency measures to reduce operating costs – those with the worst energy classes, i.e., E, F and G – it is reasonable to require energy renovation plans. Making it mandatory for all buildings is not reasonable, but targeting those that have the very worst energy classes is reasonable. The cost for energy declarations and energy renovation plans also needs to be subsidized for vulnerable households.

Madam Speaker! Another matter is that the supervision needs to be developed and strengthened so that measures are implemented in reality – and in a good way. One problem with the supervision is that no one controls the quality of the energy declarations. The low quality of some energy declarations causes serious companies to withdraw from the market, which undermines the credibility of the entire system. The quality of the completed energy declarations must be raised. Energimyndigheten and Boverket should be tasked with developing the energy declarations and reviewing how the supervision can be carried out so that there is good quality in them.

Madam Speaker! To be honest: energy efficiency must come first. It provides the cheapest, cleanest and safest energy. Every kilowatt-hour we save reduces climate emissions, lowers costs for households and companies, reduces our dependence on fossil fuels and increases Sweden's security and resilience.

With that, I move for approval of reservation 2.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! In debates like these, I always think of a Center Party municipal council in Kungsbacka 20 years ago, which used to claim that the best kilowatt is the kilowatt that does not need to be used. It sounds wise, but sometimes it is actually the case that the environment is better off if one uses that kilowatt instead of something that is more environmentally unfriendly.

We have a responsibility to care for the environment, reduce unnecessary energy consumption and ensure a sustainable supply for future generations – without, I mean, sacrificing people's freedom, economy or welfare. Therefore, we welcome the Christian Democrats' government proposal in the report on a new goal for efficient energy use and an implementation of the revised directive on the energy performance of buildings.

A qualitative goal for energy efficiency is wise and responsible. Instead of quantitative percentage targets, which often become political slogans and can go wrong in practice, we focus on what actually works: lower energy consumption through smart solutions, innovations, and incentives. It provides flexibility and respect for the fact that conditions look different in a small house in Norrland and in a property in Kungsbacka. We believe in the ability of people and companies to make rational decisions when frameworks are set, not in constant micro-management from Stockholm.

The implementation of the revised EPBD directive is a necessary adaptation to EU law. We view the stricter requirements for energy declarations during major renovations, on energy renovation plans, and on the focus on sustainable mobility positively. What we oppose is unnecessary and burdensome bureaucracy that risks raising housing costs, particularly for families with children and the elderly who are already struggling with finances.

For us Christian Democrats, energy efficiency is not just about the climate but about responsibility, freedom, and justice. It is just that we use resources sparingly. It provides freedom when families get lower bills and companies can compete without unnecessary costs. It also creates jobs across the country – within the construction sector, technology development, and property management.

We have long emphasized that energy efficiency is one of the most profitable measures for building up the energy supply. It provides socio-economic gains, technical development, and lower costs for companies and households. Therefore, it is important that the supports are accurate, that the regulations do not hinder renovation of, for example, the million program projects, and that we do not penalize those who have actually already made investments.

That is why we think it is good that the government has proposed a qualitative goal that is manageable. We still believe that the energy efficiency can continue forward.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 22.)

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