The regulatory framework for future electricity and gas grids

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposed decision.

The Committee on Industry continues to debate energy-related issues, and this report is also prompted by the requirements of EU law. This report is partly connected to the previous one, and the committee has therefore ensured that the provisions of both propositions are synchronized in the Riksdag's reports and the handling of them.

The report is based on measures from the so-called German Judgment, for which the previous government commissioned an inquiry as early as 2022. The purpose was to review how the Swedish regulatory framework related to the German Judgment and to review the provisions regarding the appeal of the supervisory authority's decisions in the area. The inquiry was presented in October 2023 and has now been finalized at the ministry in 2025.

This concerns very technical issues, and there are also clear opposing parties, which is why it is likely not possible to satisfy all stakeholders. On one hand, Sweden needs substantial investments in the electricity grid for the ongoing electrification, and in that case, electricity grid companies need to receive incentives for investments and, not least, compensation for these investments. On the other hand, customers' costs for the electricity grid have increased, and the criticism that electricity retail constitutes an ever smaller part of the total cost for electricity is palpable across the country. The latter has led to increased demands from consumers regarding the supervisory authority's tools and mandate, which EU law, the German judgment, and the investigation also establish.

But what does the bill and the committee report mean in practice? As committee chair and first in the speaking order, I see it as my responsibility to try to concretize what we are debating. The conditions that electricity grid companies and natural gas companies apply within the framework of electricity grid activities and natural gas activities are subject to preliminary review by the supervisory authority, according to the Electricity Act and the Natural Gas Act. Most revenues related to such activities shall be contained within a revenue framework that the supervisory authority decides upon for a fixed supervisory period.

It is also of great importance for the customers that the regulation of the size of the revenue caps and the other preliminary review of the companies' terms and conditions function in a purposeful manner. Certain provisions in the law that affect the design of the terms and conditions are proposed to be repealed.

It is proposed that the government's possibility to allow the supervisory authority to issue regulations in the area be expanded. It is also proposed that the composition of the administrative court and the court of appeal during the judicial review of the supervisory authority's decisions on revenue frameworks shall include economic experts.

Even in this report, there is a clear consumer perspective, as it is emphasized that the revenue framework – the grid companies' compensation – shall not be greater than what the grid companies need for the grid operations themselves. At the same time, it is highlighted that the assessment of whether the grid operations are conducted in a manner that is compatible with or contributes to an efficient utilization of the electricity grid shall be allowed to result in an increase or decrease of the revenue framework. There is thus a flexibility in the system.

Madam Speaker! The new provisions regarding the revenue framework have met with criticism from the electricity grid companies, which I understand to some extent. They claim, in contrast to the investigation, that the current provisions comply with EU law in this area.

When one ends up in such technical discussions about how to interpret different EU legislations and interpretations of interpretations of EU legislations, I, as a Swedish politician, wish there were a telephone hotline in Brussels to call so that one could have investigated what is correct and what is not in five minutes. But that is not the case. Instead, it most resembles a black box where it is completely impossible to get clear, concrete answers in advance on how something should be interpreted or applied.

The Sweden Democrats, in the coordination of this product, have tried to safeguard both the customer and the electricity grid companies' opportunities to contribute to the expansion of the electricity grid. In that tug-of-war, I assess that the bill has landed somewhere in the middle, which reasonably should also be the ambition. That being said, I understand that one has not made any party 100 percent satisfied either.

Against this background, I nevertheless consider it positive that the supervisory authority, Energimarknadsinspektionen, should now publish preliminary methods that can serve as the basis for the calculation of the revenue framework before the grid companies submit the information needed to determine the framework. This should facilitate things for the electricity grid companies – so does the fact that the regulation on specific investment space for electricity grid operations remains, despite the commission's proposal, and thereby strengthens the long-term planning of grid operations.

Madam Speaker! Now I have focused on the electricity grid, but large parts of the bill deal, as is known, with the transmission of natural gas. Due to some gaps in the legislation, many new paragraphs have been required to ensure that the grids can also be used for the distribution of natural gas and, in the future, also other types of gas. Natural gas is used quite limitedly in Sweden today but is incredibly important for parts of our industry and can certainly, during a transition period, constitute an increasingly important part even in terms of Sweden's electricity supply.

I will stop there and welcome the other speeches in the debate.

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

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating the Committee on Industry's report, the Regulatory Framework for Future Electricity and Gas Networks, and I move for the approval of our reservation.

Madam Speaker! The energy system lays the foundation for modern society and is central to a country's development. Sweden has begun a shift, electrification, where transport, industrial processes, and other activities are replacing fossil raw materials with electricity. Successful electrification is crucial for increasing growth, creating prosperity, and simultaneously reaching the national climate goals of net-zero emissions by 2045. It will also contribute to emission reductions in other countries through the export of climate-smart products. Electrification can contribute to significant energy efficiency and reduced emissions from transport. It is also crucial for transitioning to fossil-free processes in industries.

Cheap and stable electricity will be one of Sweden's greatest competitive advantages moving forward, and for the economy to work for ordinary people, good access to electricity at a low cost is required. This presupposes more electricity from water, wind, sun, nuclear power, and bioenergy. Today's situation with large price differences and recurring high prices is unreasonable. Our goal is that all of Sweden should have the same low electricity prices, and that requires both new electricity production and expanded electricity grids and gas grids throughout the country.

Madam Speaker! It is in this context that today's report must be understood. The bill contains technical adjustments to EU law, and much of it is necessary. But it lacks a holistic approach on how a robust, sustainable, and fair electricity system can be built in Sweden. We believe that Sweden needs a robust electricity system that, in the long run, can manage to produce and deliver twice as much electricity as today. The state therefore needs to enable extensive investments in fossil-free power sources, electricity grids, and gas grids. The expansion needs to be fast and cost-effective. At the same time, the costs must be reasonable for electricity customers regardless of where in the country they are located.

When the Energy Markets Inspectorate is given a more independent role regarding the determination of the electricity grid companies' revenue caps and the approval of transmission and connection tariffs through the proposed legislative changes, there are, in our opinion, reasons to consider a new model for calculating the grid companies' revenue caps, which involves lowering the return for the grid companies but rewards efficient grid use and innovative solutions. In our opinion, a new model could include a broadened definition of the concept of capital base. This could, for example, involve allowing facilities that are under construction or that are completed but not yet commissioned to be included in the calculation basis. Furthermore, we believe there may be reasons to consider a different method for valuing the facilities, for example, acquisition value adjusted by the consumer price index instead of as it is now: acquisition value adjusted by the construction cost index.

Madam Speaker! We stand on the side of the consumers. Grid fees are today a major cost for households and companies when it comes to energy. When the Energy Markets Inspectorate is given a more independent role in establishing revenue frameworks and tariffs, the politics need to signal a clear direction. The return for the grid companies must, of course, be reasonable and allow for profitable investments – however, not higher than necessary. The regulation shall reward efficiency and innovation, and the costs for consumers shall be kept as low as possible. This is a central part of a Social Democratic energy policy – to combine a strong and robust electricity system with fair conditions for ordinary households and for companies across the entire country.

Madam Speaker! Sweden needs to build more grids, but build smartly and prioritize smart solutions so that the existing power grid can be used better. Today's regulation primarily rewards physical expansion of the grid. This risks leading to higher costs and higher grid fees than necessary. We therefore want to see a regulation that favors flexibility services, energy storage, local power management, digitalization of the power grid, as well as smart control and smart consumption.

Madam Speaker! Building the electricity grid is important, and Sweden needs to invest in it. But using the electricity grid more smartly is at least as important. This is what the regulation should support – obviously also when it comes to the gas grid.

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! We are facing a comprehensive pressure for change. The electrification of industry, transport, and our everyday lives requires that electricity and gas networks both function better and are managed more efficiently than before. We need regulatory frameworks that are capable of meeting the EU's requirements, that facilitate investments, and that ensure that consumers receive reasonable and predictable conditions.

With the government's proposal, necessary adjustments are made to the Electricity Act and the Natural Gas Act, the supervisory authority's independence is strengthened, and the regulatory framework for revenue caps, connection fees, and trial processes is modernized. This is technical, yes, but it is also cornerstones in an electricity system that must be able to deliver secure electricity in peacetime, in crises, and ultimately in war.

Step by step, a robust, cost-effective and fossil-free energy system shall be built that enables the climate transition, strengthens competitiveness and meets the needs of the future.

Madam Speaker! The Government proposes changes that ensure that Swedish legislation complies with the EU's electricity market directive and gas market directive, particularly regarding the exclusive powers of national supervisory authorities. This means, in plain Swedish, that the Energy Markets Inspectorate receives a clearer and stronger mandate to establish revenue frameworks, to approve tariffs, and to make decisions that previously, in every case to some extent, have been regulated by law.

The proposal also covers the changes in how the Administrative Court and the Court of Appeal shall be staffed during appeals, where economic experts shall now be included in revenue regulation cases. This strengthens legal certainty and improves the technical quality of the judicial review.

The committee also makes a minor technical legal adjustment in Chapter 1, Section 4 of the ellagen to coordinate the government's various propositions so that the regulatory framework is comprehensive when the changes in this report, but also those we debated an hour ago, enter into force on January 1, 2027.

Madam Speaker! An important part of the report concerns the Act on Special Investment Space for Grid Operations. The Government makes the assessment that that Act shall be retained, and we share that view. The Act aims to provide the grid companies with incentives to make investments that otherwise would not be made. Those incentives are needed when the power grids are a bottleneck for electrification.

It is not about favoring grid companies at the expense of the customers, but about avoiding the postponement of investments, which would have major negative consequences for the entire society. The law is clearly delimited and aims to strengthen the capacity in the grid without arbitrarily raising grid fees.

Madam Speaker! In reservation 1, three parties argue that the law on special investment space leads to unreasonably high grid fees and that deficits should not be able to be rolled over between oversight periods. But the possibility of doing so is a significant part of the logic of revenue regulation. Forecasts can be wrong, and conditions can change. In that case, the regulatory framework needs to have the type of safety valve that can be used in practice. The alternative would be significantly higher risk premiums and thus more volatility for electricity customers. It is also important to emphasize that the rollover is already regulated today. It is also limited to avoid unreasonable deficits and so that it should not be used to drive up profits.

Madam Speaker! In reservation 3, a political line is presented where there is a desire to reform the electricity market through a series of announcements regarding flexibility, digitalization, energy communities, and socio-economic analyses. These are issues that are both important and interesting but which already have a place in the political work that is currently ongoing.

The market investigation from April is being prepared in the Government Offices and covers all the issues highlighted in the reservation. We believe it would be unnecessary for the Riksdag to intervene and micro-manage the preparation work, which currently concerns handling the referral responses. Therefore, we reject the reservation. This is not because the issues are unimportant, but because they are already being handled in a structured manner.

Madam Speaker! The Government and the Riksdag have during the mandate period taken clear steps to modernize Swedish energy policy. We are building new nuclear power, we are strengthening the electricity grids, we are reforming the electricity market, and we are ensuring that the regulatory frameworks withstand the requirements and needs of the future. This report is such a step. It is absolutely technical, but it is also significant.

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

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! The report NU10 deals with the regulatory framework for the future's electricity and gas grids. You hear that we do not let go of electricity issues so easily. It is the second debate today on electricity grids and electricity.

Regarding gas networks, I must admit that my knowledge of that area is limited. That is not to say that it would not be just as important. But in this area, I trust the conclusions that the government has reached regarding the law on the gas market directive.

I will then come to the question of the electricity grid. In several debates, just from this rostrum, I have tried to explain how grid owners have raised their grid fees year after year and how customers have been powerless when it comes to being able to influence their situation.

I usually am a simple debater who, in my debates, comes up with down-to-earth examples from everyday life. The closest I can think of now is my own electricity bill.

This is how the cost on my electricity bill is distributed, and I choose October: Electricity distribution accounts for 60 percent of the bill, and the remaining 40 percent is for electricity trading. If I subtract from the total electricity bill what goes to the state via VAT and energy tax, it is 38 percent that goes to the state. It is just a reflection.

Then one must remember that those who chose a variable electricity price in my price area have significantly lower percentages regarding electricity trade than the 40 percent that I have, but that is only until Aurora Line opened a few weeks ago. We see the consequences at my home.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the deregulation that took place in the mid-90s, it was obviously done with arguments about consumers' freedom to choose. The Moderates were those who submitted the first motion on the deregulation of the electricity market. I believe it came as early as 1992.

It is nothing new in itself that the conservatives have always been against reforms that benefit the population broadly: one can take everything from universal suffrage to healthcare. But they like market experiments. What surprised me was that the Social Democratic government that took office in 1994 largely copied the proposal that the conservatives had worked on and completed the Moderaternas plan, with the deregulation of the electricity market coming into effect on January 1, 1996.

When socially important functions such as electricity distribution and electricity production are deregulated, it becomes a bit tricky in any case when it is not possible to choose an electricity grid operator. In that case, an authority is created that is supposed to try to mimic a market.

How does it work today with the Energy Market Inspectorate? It has lost a number of times regarding how large the revenue caps may be. What we can state in any case is that it is not a matter of emergency for companies that own electricity grids in Sweden today.

Well. We must continue to work on trying to protect the Swedish people from unreasonable costs. I and Vänsterpartiet assert that low costs are socially important for all citizens and a prerequisite for succeeding with the green transition of the entire society. It is crucial for Sweden's competitiveness that we have low costs in their entirety to deliver electricity to the consumers.

I have stood behind two reservations. I highlight reservation 1, but I stand behind both of them, of course.

I shall quote briefly from the Center Party's motion. I am glad that the Center Party representative has managed to arrive in the chamber. It is a sentence that I claim says the most: "Here we see, for example, worrying signs that the government in some cases favors the network companies over the electricity consumers in a one-sided way."

It reflects much of where we are when we try to regulate it for the benefit of the consumers. This naturally includes the question of the industry, the green transition, and our competitiveness in the situation we find ourselves in.

We should have companies that, regardless of what they do, should be able to earn money from what they are good at. That is very reasonable. But we have seen how increases in grid fees, with money that should have gone to investments in the plant itself, have largely gone to the parent company, which in turn distributed large parts to the owners.

If I have money in the bank, I should be satisfied if I get 2 percent in interest. I checked this morning to see how much interest I get on my savings account. It was 1 percent. And it is clear that the bank does not make billion-dollar profits to distribute them to me. But when companies that have a monopoly on what they sell are to have double-digit amounts in profit, it obviously sticks in the eyes of the population, who pay for the party.

I assert that it is only Systembolaget that has customers as secure as the electricity grid companies.

Madam Speaker! When Swedish society was electrified, it was natural that all households should have electricity brought into their homes. Society bore the costs, because it was considered that electrification is a public good that everyone should be able to share in. The village I come from got electricity in the late 40s, which was actually early. The cost was borne by society collectively. There were certainly symbolic fees for all the services offered, but what I want to say with this is that kilometers of cables were run to individual farms, because we built together what we thought was socially important for all citizens.

When it comes to things that everyone is expected to have and be able to use today, for example the internet, the cost of having the same service delivered can differ by 100,000 kronor. Have we changed our view on how we distribute costs for socially important services?

Mr. Speaker! I know that some think that the market and competition are the best way to keep prices down, and I agree that this is true in very many cases. But when it comes to electricity grids, which are a monopoly market, it becomes roughly like letting the pyromaniac be the rescue leader for the fire brigade.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! We are facing one of the greatest societal transitions of our time: electrification. Swedish industry, transport, and households will become increasingly dependent on electricity. It is about a shift in the use of energy and not about us reducing the use in total. We are replacing fossil fuels with renewable and fossil-free electricity. The power grids are undoubtedly one of the biggest bottlenecks in this transition.

The government's proposition is a step in the right direction – and the government should get credit for that – but it is too narrowly held and does not capture the opportunities that technological development gives us.

Furthermore – which perhaps is one of the most serious points – the grid fees can now be increased by an additional 16 billion, contrary to the need for lower grid fees and cheaper electricity bills. It is 16 billion that will be paid by households and companies and which will end up in the grid companies' already overfilled pockets instead of in the household budget.

The decision from the Tidö government and the Social Democrats on the issue goes directly against what the own investigation has proposed. The effect will be more expensive bills and a delayed and more expensive electrification. The rollover, as it is called, now becomes a dangerous precedent for the future. Instead of keeping the revenues within the framework that has been established, they must continue to collect them for a long time to come. This makes it more expensive and less efficient, and it also means that technical development is not allowed to take the place that would be possible.

I therefore move for approval of reservation 1 in the report.

The government's current proposal, which is before the Riksdag, focuses heavily on technical adjustments such as the supervisory authority's independence and revenue rules. There are many good things, but the proposal does not take the holistic approach regarding what we would need to achieve. In a situation where we can double the electricity demand by 2035, it is insufficient to only adapt the rules for supervision. We need a modern electricity law that is technology-neutral and designed for flexibility and decentralization, as well as an efficient use of the existing infrastructure.

Instead of just supporting the efficient construction of new lines, we must utilize the tools that exist: smart grids, energy storage, and flexibility services. It is cheaper, faster, and better.

In the Center Party, we talk about the four-step principle, not only when it comes to transport infrastructure but also regarding energy infrastructure. It is something that should permeate even the expansion of the electricity grid. In the current situation, traditional grid expansion is prioritized, even though it very rarely is the most efficient and cheapest way forward.

We should reform the revenue regulation so that investments in smart technology, digitalization, flexibility, and storage become more profitable than just building new physical networks. That also makes it more attractive for grid companies to invest in those types of solutions. It increases capacity, and it enables both load management and more usage than if one only relies on cable and line. Furthermore, it reduces encroachments and conflicts among landowners and local communities significantly because we utilize the existing infrastructure in a better way. It is truly building both modernly and land-efficiently.

The electricity grid business is a natural monopoly. Consumers and companies have limited opportunities to choose another grid owner, and it is therefore extra important that their interests are protected and that their freedom and opportunities are safeguarded.

Centerpartiet therefore proposes greater transparency from the grid companies. We also propose that the grid fees should be reasonable and that Energimarknadsinspektionen should be given clearer opportunities to intervene. Here, as in the case of the bill handled in the previous debate, better transparency is required regarding where power can be drawn and where new power and new production can be injected. We know that other countries are significantly better than Sweden when it comes to this.

It is simply not fair, Mr. Speaker, that consumers bear unreasonable fees, especially when the expansion of the electricity grid is to be financed, while at the same time we want to press costs. This proposition goes completely against that. It is 16 billion new kronor that the consumers are to pay. Instead of focusing on technology and opportunities when planning transmission lines, the focus today is on the grid companies' profits.

That is why it is also important to test new projects and conduct socio-economic analyses. This also applies to Svenska Kraftnät. One must then take into account not only the need for electricity but also the environmental impact, land encroachment, and the natural and residential environment. This is currently happening to a very small extent.

In a modern electricity grid expansion, one should engage in dialogue with those concerned instead of using the one-way communication that we often see today. Significantly tougher steering toward Svenska Kraftnät is needed from the government.

The bill we have on our table and which we will make a decision on tomorrow shows that the government is beginning to understand the need for change. That is good. But this is not just about adjusting existing rules, as the government is doing. We need a modern, holistic energy policy reform where the grid is one part, but where the entire need for the future is also considered, both industrially and in the homes of households. It needs to happen without the amounts on the electricity grid bills skyrocketing in the way that the government is now enabling.

If the government is truly going to work for the future's electricity and gas grids, which is the name of the bill, it must also return with a broader legislative proposal in line with what we propose in our motions. It must be a legislative proposal that modernizes the Electricity Act, rewards smart technology, strengthens consumer protection, and ensures that every pipeline construction is tested based on the best interests of society as a whole. Only then will we have a truly modern electricity grid.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! The debate on what the regulatory framework for the gas and electricity grids should look like moves in a field of tension between different interests. In recent years, we have seen an increasingly loud and explicit conflict between, on one hand, the grid companies' costs to consumers and, on the other hand, the great need for investments in the Swedish electricity grids.

Just as it has been reported here in the chamber, the proposed legislative changes are a compromise between these two interests – on one hand, the household economy of Swedish electricity and gas customers, and on the other hand, the need for large investments across the entire country. Like all compromises, this one also risks making everyone dissatisfied, but I find it difficult to see how one could land on anything else without it tipping over to one side or the other. It is also quite technical and difficult to achieve far-reaching changes that land well.

I believe that what has been proposed has a good balance between the interests. I therefore move for approval of the proposal.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We face a comprehensive electrification that we need to carry out to replace fossil with renewable. We need to do it for the climate transition, for our competitiveness and not least for our security. It is not reasonable that Europe sends more money to Russia for fossil fuels than we support Ukraine with.

Mr. Speaker! I also think that this, just as in the previous debate, is above all a missed opportunity to do more and better. The revenue regulation of the electricity grid companies, that is, how much they are allowed to charge their customers, needs to be reformed so that it becomes more profitable to invest in flexibility services, smart grids, digitalization and energy storage. Together, these contribute to increasing the capacity in the existing electricity grid.

I mentioned some reforms during my previous speech – to enable flexibility via aggregators from, for example, electric cars and heat pumps, to take two examples – but more needs to be done.

Estimates show that we may need to invest as much as 1,000 billion in the electricity grids to meet the increased electricity demand. However, this is if we do as we have done until now, that is, solve everything by building more copper lines, which will become unnecessarily expensive. At the same time, analyses show that there is a great potential to use the electricity grids more efficiently, perhaps as much as 25–40 percent more efficiently. This means, for those who are quick at mental arithmetic, a cost saving of between 250 billion and 400 billion for the electricity grid customers in the end.

Everyone understands that there will be a very big difference regarding the price tag you receive on your invoice for the grid cost if we need to invest 1,000 billion or 600 billion.

Then we come to one of today's issues, namely the rolling over. It could be done in a smarter way, I believe. I do not have all the answers, but instead of letting the electricity grid companies freely dispose of this, one could develop a state strategy: Where do we really need to strengthen the electricity grids to manage the electrification?

We could also have more of a plan to manage the climate transition. We know which industries need to transition, and we know that we need to transition the transport sector. I believe that this could be done more efficiently.

Another related issue that is highly topical and where I think a chance is being missed is the power grid companies' power tariffs. We absolutely need to utilize the power grid more efficiently and encourage smart management, but with the way the power tariffs are now being introduced, we risk a major setback.

I believe that everyone who has a power tariff knows what it is about, but for others, it is about that you have to pay for the power you use on your subscription. As it is designed now at many electricity grid companies, it risks hitting, for example, solar cell producers and electric car owners. These risk being punished despite having done society a service by investing in more renewable energy, electrifying, and replacing the fossil with electric drive. They risk receiving a fee despite it not being full in the electricity grid, despite there perhaps being as much space as one could want, and despite it being a perfect opportunity to charge the electric car at full power to utilize a surplus of electricity.

Mr. Speaker! Here we need clearer guidance from the government. We need a mandate for the Energy Markets Inspectorate to harmonize this legislation – it is primarily through regulations at present, but we have 170 different electricity grid companies that are now sitting and designing power tariffs. For this to work in a purposeful way, one needs to be able to develop smart management so that consumers can avoid this power tariff, because that is actually the purpose: to utilize the electricity grids smartly in that way.

Here we also see no initiatives from this government, despite it being an ongoing and acute problem. As said, electricity customers are punished in a completely improper way for when they use power.

Another missed opportunity is to more clearly enable energy communities in Sweden. We do not even have a legal definition of an energy community, even though this has become large in other countries – not least in Germany, where there are thousands of energy communities.

It is actually about people coming together in a neighborhood, a village, or a community and optimizing the electricity system. One might install energy storage and own electricity production. In that way, one can reduce electricity costs, but one also contributes to society through increased resilience and preparedness, by making the power grids more efficiently usable and, not least, through increased electricity production.

Unfortunately, we therefore see a long series of missed opportunities from this government when a proposition is nevertheless presented.

Last but not least: Why does one not take the opportunity to present a hydrogen strategy? It is now approximately one and a half years since Energy Minister Ebba Busch proclaimed in Almedalen that Sweden now has a hydrogen strategy. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is only that no one has seen it, so I must assume that it does not exist. On the other hand, there is a proposal from the Swedish Energy Agency on a hydrogen strategy. This would have been an absolutely excellent opportunity to actually present a hydrogen strategy and a strategy for how we expand the infrastructure for specifically hydrogen, which is already underway, not least in northern Sweden.

Also regarding the gas networks and the natural gas networks, we would have needed a clearer strategy to bring in more biogas. We have the potential to replace all the fossil gas that we currently use in the Swedish gas network with biogas. To continue using the fossil gas primarily benefits Russia and harms the climate.

Mr. Speaker! The government leaves a great deal to be desired regarding smart, innovative solutions that reduce our dependence on fossil energy, reduce costs for electricity consumers, and reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of reservation 3.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 26 November.)

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