Increased opportunities for home charging of electric vehicles

Denis Begic (S)

Mr. Speaker! We live in a time where it is becoming increasingly clear how vulnerable we are. When prices soar and conflicts affect our everyday lives, we realize that our dependence on oil is not just a climate problem but also a security problem. We cannot build our society on being dependent on others – on countries and regimes with whom we share neither values nor can we influence. Therefore, the electrification of the transport sector is not just a climate issue; it is also a matter of independence and security.

Mr. Speaker! Against that background, this proposal is important. If more people are to be able to transition, more people must be able to charge at home or at least in the vicinity of the home. That is where the car most often stands, and that is where everyday life needs to function. Therefore, we welcome the Social Democrats' government proposal, as it is a step in the right direction.

The proposal means that tenants and housing cooperative owners in certain cases are granted the right to request the installation of a charging point at their parking space. This is good and in any case removes one obstacle. But it is also important to talk about how the proposal is actually designed. It is, in fact, the resident themselves who shall bear the cost – not the property owner and not the state, but either the tenant or the housing cooperative owner.

It is here that we Social Democrats see that there are issues that must be taken seriously, because what does this mean in practice? As a tenant, one is therefore supposed to invest in a property that one does not own. One then pays for something that remains when one moves, and one takes a financial risk that not everyone has the possibility to take. For many households, this is not obvious, and for many, it is not even possible.

Mr. Speaker! We have therefore chosen to submit a special statement. We say yes to the proposal, because it is needed. But we are also clear that there are risks. Tenants will also need to transition, and they too must be able to drive electric cars. They too must be able to be part of the transition. Therefore, we must ensure that the conditions exist in practice, otherwise we risk having a transition that goes quickly for some but very slowly for others.

There are concrete risks here. The possibility exists on paper, but is it actually used in reality? The risk is that people will refrain because the cost is too high or the uncertainty too great, and then the reform risks not achieving the effect that was intended from the beginning. We do, however, see this as a necessary step, and therefore we write in our special statement that we will follow the development closely. Will the tenants use the opportunity? Will the installations take place, or will the threshold be too high? These are crucial questions, Mr. Speaker.

We also view positively that the government has indicated that it intends to return to the issue regarding joint property and common parking solutions. It is important, because the transition must encompass more housing forms. But here and now, we are dealing with just this proposal, and our position is simply that this is a necessary step forward. However, we see that it is not the entire solution. A just transition is not just about technology; it is about people actually getting the opportunity to participate and transition.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the contribution!

I will first make a confession here in the speaker's chair: I love the car. I think it is a completely fantastic invention. Imagine if we didn't have cars, Mr. Speaker! Imagine if it were the case that we were dependent solely on public transport so that we could not decide when we should travel, how we should travel and with whom we should travel. The car is fantastic, and unlike the four red parties, we Moderates love cars. We think it is an incredibly good invention.

Mr. Speaker! This is going to be a car choice, not least after the Green Party went out very forcefully on TV4 this morning and spoke about how they will shock-increase the tax on fuels if they get the opportunity. It also matches how the voting went: the Left and the Green Party voted no to the tax reduction that is now coming – on Friday, in fact. Then we lower the tax on fuels to the EU's minimum level.

Mr. Speaker! The transition to electric cars is going very fast. In fact, the Motorbranschens Riksförbund has a news item on its website that even at the end of this month, that is, now, more electric cars are sold than petrol and diesel cars if one also looks at the used car market. It is incredibly good, and it is very good that we are now getting this done with the charging.

What I would like to ask the Social Democrats, however, is the following. In Agenda on Sunday, the host really tried to get the Green Party to say how much a liter of diesel should cost. Is it 33 kronor, which is the sum that the Ministry of Finance's non-political officials have calculated? Is it 40 kronor, or is it 50 kronor? What is it that the Social Democrats want in this area? It concerns 5.5 million motorists. Approximately half a million drive electric cars and are not affected by this question, but there are 5 million other motorists who want to know what a liter of diesel will cost if the worst happens and the four red parties win the election this autumn.

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

Denis Begic (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Lars Beckman! First and foremost: I will not answer on behalf of the Green Party, because I am not a member of the Green Party. You are welcome to request a reply from the Green Party on this question if you want to know what they believe the price should be.

What I have said so far is that the transition to electricity is incredibly important. Member Beckman reported that suddenly more electric cars are being sold than before. The reason for that is not the government's way of rewarding those who actually want to transition, but the reason is the global situation – that there is war in the Middle East, that everything is becoming more expensive, and that we are dependent on other states rather than having our own opportunities to actually control what we bring into the country.

Making a transition and ensuring that people in Sweden can buy and switch to electric cars is therefore incredibly important, but it is primarily the global situation that is now forcing people in Sweden to switch. I think it is regrettable that there is not more stimulus from the government so that people can switch more easily. There are plenty of proposals on how it could be done.

I do not know what the Green Party will have for diesel prices – I have no idea about that – but I know that we will do everything to ensure that the Swedish people get a fair transition, regardless of whether one uses public transport or has a car.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that the member has not seen SVT Nyheter; I do not know if Social Democrats watch SVT. Three hours ago, a very good news item came: Erik was able to utilize the new electric car premium. He says it is the best car deal he has ever made. Erik's electric car only costs him 200 kronor a month. We already knew that the government is doing good things for the Swedish people.

I must note that the member from the Social Democrats spoke for two minutes without answering my simple question: What do the Social Democrats want the fuel to cost after the election? I understand that one wants to distance oneself from the Green Party; all parties here in the Riksdag want to do that. I also understand that one wants to distance oneself from the Left Party, because all parties want to do that as well. But the Social Democrats must have their own idea of what the fuel should cost.

We are helping with the electricity transition. Just as SVT Jönköping reported today, Erik was able to get a used electric car for 200 kronor a month. He lives in the countryside and is utilizing the electric car premium. That is exactly how the system is intended to work.

There are, however, five million motorists remaining, Mr. Speaker. They naturally want to know what a liter of diesel will cost if the Social Democrats are allowed to decide. All other things being equal, the price at the pump today would be 10 kronor higher, the Ministry of Finance's non-political officials have calculated. Now Daniel Helldén says it is to be even more than 10 kronor more at the pump. It is clear that the voters deserve to be given a notification.

The members of the House stand here in the Swedish Riksdag, and we have an election ahead of us. It is appropriate that the Social Democrats also take a stand and state what a liter of fuel should cost.

It is, moreover, good that we agree to also facilitate for those who live in rental apartments to obtain electricity poles.

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

FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN

A small electric pole appeared at the end. I must remind that the subject of the debate is increased opportunities for home charging of electric vehicles – not diesel prices.

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

Denis Begic (S)

Mr. Speaker! For me, it feels strange not to answer. It is about charging with a pump. I understand that Member Beckman wants a different kind of debate about vehicles and about whether they should be charged or not. He would prefer to have a debate that is about whether we are against the motorists or not.

For the member, it is about discussing whether we should continue to be dependent on oil states that constantly force the Swedish people to pay more. Member Beckman has voted for it. It could be about the war in Iran or about Russian oil, Putin oil, or some other oil. I know that the Moderates' way of handling these issues always builds on it being cheaper at the pump by us buying from corrupt states, not on us transitioning so that the Swedish people can charge their cars at home.

First and foremost, we want to transition so as not to be dependent on sheiks, Putin, or others. For me, the answer will always be simple: Sweden shall not be dependent on corrupt states. We shall ensure that Swedish citizens can charge at home. They shall also be able to transition. They shall not need to stand at a pump.

We have just found out that it could be the case that rationing is introduced in Sweden. This is due to exactly what the member spoke about. It is about allowing others to make money off Swedish citizens.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs an energy policy and a transport policy that makes it easier for people to live climate-smart regardless of housing type – whether one lives in a villa, a condominium, or a rental apartment. The electrification of the transport sector is crucial for us to reach the climate goals, strengthen Swedish competitiveness, and reduce the dependence on fossil fuels. With the dependence we see today, we risk rationing. It is madness to continue with the policy that the government has pursued.

However, the transition must not become a project only for those with their own driveway. Today, 80–90 percent of all electric car charging occurs in or near the home, simply because it is most economical. At the same time, many people living in apartments lack reasonable opportunities to charge their cars. This creates a clear injustice in the transition.

The government's proposal on increased opportunities for home charging is a step in the right direction. We welcome the measures that the government proposes, which strengthen the individual's right to charge at the residence. These measures are not sufficient, however.

The legislation that is being presented now is unclear and creates great uncertainties. If responsibility and cost are placed on the individual, there is a high risk that property owners will wait and let the residents bear the cost. When the government then does not clarify who actually owns the installation, it becomes even more complicated. What happens if I move? Do I own the installation? Can I take it with me, or has it become the property owner's? Is it reasonable that I then receive compensation, and how large should it be in that case?

The questions are many, but the government's answers are few. That is not sufficient in such important issues as the electrification of the transport sector. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 1 in the report.

For electrification to be truly democratized, a broader reform agenda is required.

Firstly, we want to further strengthen the right to charge. Housing cooperative members and tenants should not have to get stuck in lengthy processes or receive arbitrary rejections. The regulatory framework shall be simple and legally secure and based on the individual's ability to finance their own charging point where it is practically possible. The property owner shall take the investment, and the cost shall then be paid back over time by the person who uses the charging point. In that way, it also becomes very simple to know who owns the whole thing, who is to operate the whole thing, who is responsible for things when one moves, and who takes the cost over time. It is no stranger than making other upgrades in an apartment. You get a better standard and pay for it over time – not directly.

Secondly, one must create economic incentives that ensure a larger number of apartment buildings install charging points. Support must be secured for housing cooperatives and landlords so that common charging infrastructure can be established. One must also facilitate smart load balancing to keep costs down.

Thirdly, we want to enable energy communities. Residents in multi-family buildings should be able to easily share local solar electricity, combine charging with shared energy production, and invest together in charging and energy systems. Joint property owners shall, of course, be able to install charging stations without a new decree from Lantmäteriet. For me, it is very simple: charging is today a part of parking. This strengthens both the electricity grid and household finances.

For the fourth, we want to develop charging where people actually live. We want to see more charging points at residential parking and street parking. One should ensure that the power grid is used for normal charging. One should clarify the requirements for charging preparation during new production and major renovations and ensure that more neighborhood-based public normal chargers are obtained.

For the fifth, we want to promote technological development. We see the challenges in the electricity system, but they can be overcome. It is even possible to strengthen the system if it is done in the right way. With smart charging, vehicle to grid, battery storage and local flexibility, we strengthen the system while simultaneously investing in it.

Sweden can and shall be at the forefront. The Center Party's line is clear: the transition must be possible in the entire country and for all types of housing. Electrification is not a class or housing privilege. We need more freedom, less hassle, more investments, and greater local energy power. It should be just as easy to drive and charge an electric car for someone living in an apartment as it is for someone living in a villa. We need a climate transition in Sweden that creates growth and justice and that lowers emissions. Sweden can do more.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Rickard Nordin for an engaged contribution. I will give the same confession to the Center Party as I did to the Social Democrats. We Moderates love the car. We love mobility. We think it is absolutely fantastic that those who do not live near the subway in Stockholm have the opportunity to travel when they want, how they want, and with whom they want. I regret that you in the Center Party have joined a car-hostile line. I think that is unfortunate. It affects, not least, your voters, for example in Hälsingland, where you previously had strong voter support.

Mr. Speaker! I understand that Member Rickard Nordin does not have a grasp of the municipal council in Gävle, but there we have had tough debates about why Gavlegårdarna, the municipal housing company, which is completely dominant on the market, did not want to build charging stations. If one lives in one of Gavlegårdarnas apartments in Gävle, how can one then have an electric car? You cannot charge it. That is what we are taking a big step towards solving now. In the debates in the municipal council in Gävle – the member from Sverigedemokraterna has heard them – the Centerpartiet stood up and said: No, our tenants do not have cars, so they need no charging. Then the question becomes: the chicken or the egg?

I would like to ask: Why hasn't more been done earlier? We Moderates have pushed this issue for at least ten years and said: If we are to be able to electrify, tenants must also be able to charge the car – it is extremely important. That is my one question.

Then I want to ask the same question again. Half a million have an electric car. Five million motorists do not have an electric car. How high a diesel price do you in Centerpartiet want if the misfortune occurs and you form a government with Miljöpartiet?

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! First, Lars Beckman should go and wash his ears, because the Speaker in the previous exchange told the member not to talk about anything other than just home charging of electric cars. That is what I intend to stick to, because that is what this debate is about. If we are to talk about other things, Lars Beckman is welcome to the climate debates, for example in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture. There we can very well discuss the madness of being dependent on fossil oil and diesel from Russia and others, something for which we are seeing the consequences of right now.

When it comes to the municipal council in Gävle, I think Lars Beckman should take the discussion in Gävle. It is his home municipality, after all. If he, on the other hand, wants some inspiration, he can come to Gothenburg, where the municipal housing company guarantees a right to set up a charging station for everyone who wants one.

If Lars Beckman really wants to make a difference, he should change the legislation that is currently being proposed, which forces the residents to pay the cost for the charging station. It risks making property owners extremely passive. It also makes it more expensive for those who want their own charging station and means that, in practice, one is left without any rights the day they move. In that case, one has made an investment that one cannot take with them.

If you have been pushing for things for ten years, it is obvious that you have not achieved anything. It was not the case that the Moderaterna were pushing this when we sat together in the Alliance. I was personally involved in discussing those matters then. During the last parliamentary term, when we had the January agreement, the Moderaterna definitely did not push for this type of policy. I sat myself and negotiated with the red-green parties and the Liberalerna. It was not the case that the Moderaterna were pushing for this type of reforms in the chamber then. It was rather the opposite. We in the Centerpartiet have, however, pushed for a number of different solutions, such as smart charging, vehicle-to-grid, and flexibility.

The policy to get more electric cars on the road has been completely missing during this parliamentary term. A number of different measures have been taken, such as a scrappage premium, but they have not worked. Now, a small electric car premium came at the end. It is good, but far too complicated. Tell me, Lars Beckman: Is the person living in Vadstena or Boden not sufficiently in need of a car to receive electric car support and be able to charge their car at home?

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! First, the Social Democrats refuse to say what a liter of diesel will cost after the election. Now, the Centre Party refuses to say what a liter of diesel will cost. They hate cars, then, and that is unfortunate. One thing that the Centre Party does not talk about, Madam Speaker, is where the electricity will come from when they are to electrify the car fleet.

Madam Speaker! I was in the chamber when well-functioning nuclear power was laid down by a majority vote. It was even to the point that the members of the Center Party applauded. I am not sure that the companies, the villa owners, and those who are going to charge their electric cars are applauding today. But even then, one could see the consequences of us having a power shortage and an electricity shortage; it triggered up the electricity prices.

I am glad that the Center Party, at least – unlike when one sat in the lap of the Social Democrats – now sees that the government is taking the issue of electrification seriously. Naturally, one starts with the question that there must be electricity. We will ensure that nuclear power is built again. Now, we are facilitating things for those who live in condominiums and rental apartments, for example in Gävle, where Gavlegårdarna has refused to ensure that charging stations are installed. Now there is legislation that makes it possible to demand a charging station. That is the difference. This legislation should only be used in cases where one cannot reach an agreement with the property owner or where the property owner does not want to, for example Gavlegårdarna in Gävle.

Madam Speaker! We give the Centre Party an opportunity to answer the question: What will a liter of diesel cost if the disaster is imminent and you join the government with the Green Party?

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Lars Beckman is probably the master of disinformation in this chamber. He is unable to answer who is to pay for the bill that he himself advocates for. He, however, is happy to talk about nuclear power and reactors that were to be decommissioned according to Vattenfall itself. The Chairman of the Board says that it became political in hindsight when the decisions had already been made.

Lars Beckman talks about there not being enough electricity to charge electric cars. But we know that the electricity export, as it was last year, could electrify the entire fleet of passenger cars twice over. He talks about there not being enough power. This is nonsense. Look at any scenario from Energimyndigheten, Svenska kraftnät, Chalmers, or KTH! This is not a problem, and it is just nonsense to stand in the Riksdag and claim otherwise. This is just a way to delay and worsen the transition. It makes it more expensive for Swedish car owners. Putin laughs all the way to the bank when you continue to feed his war chest with fossil oil and gas, which Europe continues to import.

Lars Beckman and the Moderaterna should be ashamed for continuing to pursue this policy, because this is a security policy threat to Sweden. One also fails to conduct a sensible debate in Sweden's Riksdag and instead gets stuck in a lot of other things.

What I wanted an answer to is: Who pays in the long run when I, at my condominium, install a charging station at my own expense? Can I take it with me when I move out? That is what this bill is about. But Lars Beckman is unable to answer that, even though he represents the government parties.

This is bad. It is petty and cowardly to engage in disinformation, fake news and other bullshit. It is not acceptable. It is not worthy of the Swedish Parliament. Lars Beckman should come back and account for the real issues.

(Applause)

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! The possibility of driving an electric car requires good conditions. I believe we all share that attitude. The expansion of the electrification of the country and the vehicle fleet is an important and decisive point. We need to broaden the possibility of using this mode of operation. Simpler and cheaper charging is needed. In fact, today, as a tenant or housing cooperative owner, one cannot demand to have a charging station installed. We enable that today with this legislation.

The background to this is an EU directive. It is rarely good when the EU tries to interfere with the member states' ways of handling national policy. We create the best conditions for the electrification of the country ourselves.

In today's discussion on how this bill has been handled, we have slightly different starting points. Miljöpartiet and Socialdemokraterna believe that the property owners should pay for the charging station. I am of the view that we should avoid a collective fee. Those who do not have a car that needs charging should not ultimately have to indirectly participate in paying the fee.

Is it reasonable that a tenant or housing cooperative owner should be able to demand a free private charging point? No, I do not think so. The EU directive, however, forced through this bill. I believe we could have found many other good solutions in this context. We could have had a form of shared charging infrastructure in our housing cooperative areas. But the solution is not that the collective should pay for it instead of the individual.

Despite everything, it is ultimately the case that the person who owns an electric car is given very good practical conditions with their own charging pole. It provides a good time saving, and home charging is cheaper. There are therefore many advantages to this bill. Therefore, I think it is reasonable that the cost is not collective but individual.

With EU directives coming in and controlling in detail in this way, it is rarely good. But given the premises, I believe the bill is the best we can come up with. Under different premises, without supranational influence in this issue, we probably could have discussed the matter on a completely different level.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam Speaker, members of the House!

Households have high costs today. It is truly a cost crisis. It is important that everyone has the opportunity to be a part of the climate transition. Therefore, Miljöpartiet has a campaign promise that everyone shall be able to afford to drive an electric car. It is also very important that the charging infrastructure becomes accessible to more people. There must be good opportunities to charge at home.

The previous government has for several years undermined the electrification of the vehicle fleet. The sales of rechargeable vehicles in Sweden have also slowed down. The pace today is, according to all assessors, too low for Sweden to be able to meet the climate goals by 2030. We need to change that. We can observe that it is now EU requirements that drive Swedish climate policy. There is not much else.

Madam Speaker! It is a dangerous path to take, because climate policy is security policy. We are in a fossil dependency. There is even talk of rationing. We need to move away from that. We cannot be dependent on oil states and on rogue states.

The bill on the table comes from the EU, and it is intended to facilitate home charging. But the government proposes that it is the residents themselves who should bear the cost of the investment in a charging point.

I see a clear risk that this will make property owners more reluctant when it comes to expanding charging infrastructure. With the government's proposal, they get incentives to wait for residents to ask the question, because it is then the residents who have to pay for the installation.

First, the government slammed on the brakes regarding the sale of rechargeable vehicles. Now, the government is creating new uncertainties – this time concerning the expansion of home charging.

A just climate transition requires that individuals who want to transition should be able to do so. Therefore, we in Miljöpartiet believe that the investment cost for charging infrastructure should lie with the property owner and not with individual residents. The operation, however, i.e., when one charges their car, it is of course reasonable that the resident pays.

The housing cooperative or landlord that builds charging infrastructure is making a long-term investment through a value-enhancing measure, something that a tenant or housing cooperative member cannot benefit from if they move. The value remains in the property and in the cooperative.

Furthermore, the property owner can apply for funds from Klimatklivet for the investment. It is an opportunity that the resident does not have. Through that, the property owner can have up to half the cost paid through the reform that Miljöpartiet previously pushed through in government.

Property owners can also plan long-term and with a holistic perspective that individual residents cannot have when it comes to investments in the property. A property owner can, for example, prepare infrastructure for future tenants or housing cooperative members. It is a cost that an individual household should not and, in many cases, does not have the possibility to bear. There is a greater risk of sub-optimization if the investment is placed on the resident's shoulders.

We also believe that the possibility of home charging should apply to parking spaces that are common facilities and are shared between two or more housing cooperatives. In this way, all housing cooperatives are covered by the new rules. Such common parking solutions are common.

Madam Speaker! As I said at the beginning of the speech: The Tidö government has for several years undermined the electrification of the vehicle fleet. The sale of rechargeable vehicles in Sweden has slowed down.

Now the government makes it even more difficult by placing the bill for the investment in a charging station on the resident, who may not even live in the property anymore and thus cannot share in the increase in value. It is completely the wrong way to go.

We in Miljöpartiet want to truly make it easier for people to switch to electric cars – for we love electric cars, Lars Beckman! – and reduce Sweden's fossil dependency. With that, I move for approval of reservation 2.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! We have earlier in today's debate heard that the Social Democrats more or less distanced themselves from the Green Party. We have heard how the Centre Party distanced themselves from the Green Party. Now a representative for the Green Party is himself in the speaker's chair, Madam Speaker. Then we can, of course, take the opportunity to ask about the Green Party's policy.

My points with posing the questions to C and S are that I do not believe that C will get 51 percent and that I do not believe that S will get 51 percent. It is four parties that in that case would form a government together.

Madam Speaker! This morning we heard the Environment Party's spokesperson Daniel Helldén be very clear on TV4: It is going to become more expensive to drive a car in Sweden. Then many people ask, just as they did in Agenda on Sunday: How much more expensive is it going to become?

Here in Stockholm, we see that in addition to making it more expensive to drive a car, they are also making it more difficult. It is a misery to be a motorist in Stockholm. Now I saw that Miljöpartiet would make it even harder for motorists. In that case, it doesn't matter if you drive an electric car or a gasoline car. The problem is that you cannot get around.

I would still like to ask a question to the Green Party. I heard, quite joyfully, that you were in favor of electric cars. What will the electric cars be charged with then? You sat here and applauded together with the Center Party and the Social Democrats when we decommissioned well-functioning nuclear power.

It was a decision that became almost catastrophic for the business community in Skåne and for the households that were brought to their knees when they could not afford to pay the electricity bills. It caused the Moderaterna and the Tidö parties to pay out electricity subsidies to the Swedish people.

One must have the means to fuel the car regardless of whether it is with electricity or gasoline, and there must be electricity in the outlet. I would like to ask Amanda Palmstierna: What will it cost to drive a car in the Miljöparti's Sweden if the misfortune arrives this autumn?

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Lars Beckman, for the question!

We want to make it cheaper to buy an electric car, to drive an electric car, and to install a charging station at home. That is what we want to make cheaper and not more expensive. Here, Lars Beckman should listen more carefully to what is actually being said and not provide false information.

When it comes to where the electricity should come from, the member knows very well that Sweden exports a very large amount of electricity. Furthermore, the Tidö government has done its best to pull the plug on the work with energy efficiency.

A goal for energy efficiency is presented without figures and which does not yet have any follow-up, and very many different supports for energy efficiency that could have further relieved the grid have been removed.

I also think that Member Beckman is held responsible for how the Member believes we should reduce fossil fuel dependency. Climate policy is security policy. Instead of going in to increase gasoline populism, why not take the opportunity and simply shift to making it cheaper to drive an electric car and to charge an electric car?

The question we are actually debating in the chamber here today is: Why does the government want it to be the resident who is to bear the cost of investing in a charging station at home, when it is a value increase that remains in the property and that one cannot take with them when moving? Why does the Member want to make it more expensive to drive and charge an electric car?

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! The Ministry of Finance's non-political officials have calculated that, all else being equal, it would cost 10 kronor more for a liter of diesel if you were in government than the price is now at the pump. If it then becomes 20 kronor more expensive or 15 kronor more expensive per liter, your spokespersons unfortunately refuse to answer. Amanda Palmstierna had the chance now, and she did not answer that either.

Then it becomes quite different when one says: We have an electricity surplus in the summer when it is windy. We do. At that time, we even have negative prices on electricity. But that is not the problem. I must also be able to charge my car in January when it is 30 degrees cold. The Green Party naturally knows that.

For ideological reasons, the Center Party and the Green Party are against nuclear power. That can be respected. The problem is only that the Social Democrats allow you to pursue that policy, which is bad.

Madam Speaker! I will say it again, and I will say it loudly, slowly, and clearly: According to the Motor Industry Federation, more electric cars that are at most ten years old will now be sold than petrol cars. That is good. The transition is facilitated. This shall, of course, occur on market terms and thus not be forced through by political decisions.

We have three cars in our family, one of which is an electric car. I gladly choose the electric car. It runs quietly, it is fun to drive, and we have home charging. It is what we, with this decision now, give everyone the opportunity to have. This applies, for example, to tenants in Gavlegårdarna in Gävle, where the Socialdemokraterna and Centern have refused to install charging stations. This has meant that those who live in the municipal housing company's stock in Gävle have had difficulty being able to charge at home.

I ask Amanda Palmstierna again: How expensive is it going to be to own and drive a petrol or diesel car in the Green Party's Sweden?

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

ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN

I want to remind once again that the debate is about home charging of electric vehicles.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the reminder! I think Member Beckman could listen to it. He has consistently brought up gasoline and diesel in all his remarks here in the chamber, and it is becoming quite tiresome. Ask those questions to our climate policy spokespersons instead! They are in the chamber and are listening today.

I also think that the member could read the foreign news a bit better. There is a war going on, and events are occurring in the world that affect the price level, which the member is actually very well aware of. But go and read the news and reflect on it!

What we are debating here today is why the government wants a resident to bear the investment cost for a charging point. It is something that the property owner receives as an increase in value, but which the resident cannot take with them.

We in Miljöpartiet think that it should be cheaper to drive an electric car regardless of how one lives – in a villa, a condominium or a rental apartment – and regardless of where one lives – in northern Sweden, in Gävle or in Norrtälje, where I grew up. It should be cheap to drive an electric car, and it should be simple and cheap to charge one's electric car. That is what the question is about today.

We in Miljöpartiet of course think it is good that one strengthens residents' opportunities to charge at home, but we also think it is the property owner and not the resident who should bear the investment cost.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! I have said it in previous exchanges, and I am happy to say it again: We Moderates love the car.

Think if the car didn't exist and we were dependent on something else! Let's say that Miljöpartiet would get 51 percent of the votes in Sweden. Then the car would likely disappear, and we would be dependent on public transport. Then, one would not be able to choose when one wants to travel, how one wants to travel, and with whom one should travel. That is what is so fantastic about the car. One can, therefore, choose when one should travel, where one should travel, and with whom one should travel.

It is about the hockey mom in Gävle who helps so that we get future hockey professionals in Brynäs and about the craftsman, the electrician, the veterinarian and the home care staff who drive and help our elderly; it is very many who use the car. It is a completely fantastic tool for getting around.

Madam Speaker! I think it is unfortunate that so many from the red bloc blacken the car as soon as they get a chance. We who drive here from Gävle sometimes and try to get to the Riksdag's garage can see the consequences of how Miljöpartiet acts in Stockholm, where they ensure that people can hardly get around. Where it previously took 10 minutes to get into the Riksdag's garage, it now takes 25–30 minutes even though there is hardly any traffic. That is the policy that Miljöpartiet pursues, and that is what they are proud of. But it is unfortunate that the Socialdemokrater allow this.

Madam Speaker! The car is more than a vehicle; it is a symbol of freedom, movement, and opportunities. It takes us where we want to go when we want to, independent of timetables and distances. Through the car, city and countryside, work and leisure, and people and places are bound together. The car makes it possible to discover the world but also to make everyday life function, as I said – to drop the children off at daycare or at school, to shop, to commute, and to visit loved ones.

Mobility is the foundation of a living society. Without it, development stops. The car, Madam Speaker, has been an engine for economic growth and social cohesion for a long time. It gives us own control over our time and our direction.

Madam Speaker! It is very good that with this decision we also give those who live in a rental apartment or a housing cooperative the opportunity to buy an electric car and charge it. It has not been possible for everyone previously. In Gävle, for example, Gavlegårdarna have said: Our tenants do not have cars, so we are uninterested in installing charging stations.

In the normal case, Madam Speaker, this should work. But this will be a protective piece of legislation which means that the person who lives in a rental apartment where the landlord refuses to install a charging point will have the opportunity to demand it. Just as Member Roger Hedlund said, it is then reasonable that the person who receives the benefit also pays for it. But this is what one can call a protective piece of legislation; in the normal case, this should work very well in any case.

Madam Speaker! I have tried to ask the Social Democrats, the Centre Party, and the Green Party what a liter of gasoline or diesel would cost after the election if misfortune strikes. The Ministry of Finance's non-political officials have calculated that it would cost at least 10 kronor more per liter, all other things being equal. Daniel Helldén said on TV4 this morning that he does not rule out an even higher price.

I have also noted that the Speaker is a bit irritated that I am raising this issue, and not least the member from the Center Party almost went into a frenzy in the speaker's chair. But politics is a whole, Madam Speaker. It can be the case that a family has both a petrol car, a diesel car, and an electric car, just like our family – three different cars and three different needs.

Even in a debate like this, the parties could have had the opportunity to tell what they actually want and think. It is campaigning, Madam Speaker! The parties on the opposition side are very proud that you want a liter of diesel to cost 33 kronor! Now you have the opportunity to tell that to the voters here so that they can find out properly.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the Committee on Civil Affairs' report 29 on increased opportunities for home charging of electric vehicles.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Lars Beckman has spoken about almost everything except for just that bill which we have before the House today.

I thought I would give him the chance to clarify a number of things that many are wondering about. Let us assume that a person living in an apartment utilizes the new bill and installs a charging station. I have a couple of very simple questions for Lars Beckman.

Firstly: Who owns the charging station?

Secondly: How is the electricity subscription handled?

For the third: Where is the limit of ownership? Is it at the charging station itself, if one owns the charging station, or is it where the cable connects to the installation?

For the fourth: If I then own everything, since I have paid for it myself, may I take it with me when moving?

These are simple and reasonable questions that those who wish to utilize the new bill have the right to receive answers to. Can Lars Beckman answer them?

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! The answers are set out in the bill, so that Rickard Nordin, and indeed everyone else, can read them.

If I have understood correctly, the Center Party is for the proposal. As I said in my speech, this will become a protective legislation, because in normal cases it should work anyway. In the housing cooperative where we had a condominium apartment, everyone made a collective decision to install charging stations in brf Grand. They added a monthly fee to the rent which ensured that everyone participated and paid. It was a collective decision, because most – or at least many – had an electric car.

Normally, the Center Party is in favor of a market economy. But in this case, it seems that the Center Party thinks that someone other than the person using the charging station should pay. In, for example, a housing cooperative where there is only one electric car in the garage area – why should the other apartment owners pay for a charging station there? It is perfectly reasonable that the person who demands a charging station also pays for it.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I have read the bill, but it does not seem that Lars Beckman has.

The answers to my questions are therefore not apparent from the bill. These are questions that have been asked by referral bodies, but the answers have not been clarified.

It would therefore be very good if Lars Beckman could account for the answers to the four questions: Who owns the charging station? How is the electricity grid subscription handled? Where is the limit for the installation? Can one take the installation with them when moving? These are very clear questions from referral bodies that have not received any answers. It is great in the places where it actually works – excellent! That is how it should be.

If Lars Beckman had bothered to listen to our proposal, he would have known that it is not about spreading the costs over all other tenants. It is that the property owner takes the investment and then raises the rent, just as is done in a renovation with a standard increase, so that the person who uses the charging station pays this back over time. It is not something that anyone else has to pay.

It also makes it easier for the one who receives the charging station. It becomes easier for the property owner, who does not have a lot of other electrical installations that apply to other forms of ownership and can hire other contractors. It becomes much easier to do in this way.

Again: It would be good if Lars Beckman could explain who owns the charging station, how the subscription will be handled, where the line is drawn for ownership, and if one is allowed to take the installation with them upon moving since one has paid for it oneself.

(Applause)

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! The answers are therefore contained in the bill, so Rickard Nordin will have to read it once more.

I still think it is positive that the Center Party seems to think that cars are good. One can still be happy about that. You want to pursue politics together with the Green Party, and the consequences of their politics can be seen by any voter, for example, a family from Gävle going on holiday this summer, at least here in Stockholm, Madam Speaker. It is hardly possible to get around. In addition to making it difficult to get around, you are also removing parking spaces. It is an effective way to harass motorists – extremely unfortunate!

But now we are solving an important issue for those who want to buy an electric car. As I said, disinformation is spreading here, not least from the MP member who said that not many electric cars are being sold. That is, more used electric cars, up to ten years old, are sold in April than gasoline and diesel cars are sold, and that is very good. Now, the person who lives in an apartment where there is a property owner, for example Gavlegårdarna in Gävle, who refuses to install a charging station, will get that opportunity.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

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

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