Confidentiality in certain matters regarding strategic net-zero projects
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned the government's proposal regarding confidentiality when applying to classify projects as strategic net-zero projects. M argued that confidentiality is needed to protect trade secrets, such as business strategies and technical solutions, in a global competition 1. They emphasized that the confidentiality only applies to the application procedure and not to the subsequent permit processes or decisions 1. KD clarified that the confidentiality only applies during the first part of the process and that there is a presumption of publicity 2. KD emphasized that projects are not given priority for financial support and that the same publicity applies when applying for support 2. SD criticized the proposal as an over-implementation of EU rules that threatens the principle of public access 3. SD argued that 20 years of confidentiality is unreasonably long and instead proposed that the confidentiality should be limited to business-critical information and that independent bodies should be given oversight 3.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Lars Engsund (M)
Madam Speaker! The Government's bill on secrecy in certain matters regarding strategic net-zero projects, which is found in KU's report 7, has caused some attention recently. It may even be the case that Madam Speaker has received one email or another regarding the matter.
Let me be clear and briefly begin with a summary of what the bill is about. The bill concerns a possibility for confidentiality for those companies that wish to apply to have their net-zero project classified as a strategic net-zero project. Thus, only the application procedure can be subject to confidentiality. Confidentiality does not apply to the decision, which will be made by Swedish authorities. It also does not apply to subsequent permit assessments.
The bill is not linked to state economic support, grants, or credit guarantees. However, projects classified as strategic net-zero projects are given shorter timeframes and permit processes of 9–18 months depending on the type of project.
Madam Speaker! The background to the bill is the EU's net-zero regulation from 2024, which is intended to promote the production of so-called net-zero technology, which can include, among other things, nuclear technology, battery technology, and hydrogen technology.
According to the ordinance, an application is required for a project within net-zero technology to be classified as a strategic net-zero project. It is Tillväxtverket and Sveriges geologiska undersökning that grant recognitions of strategic net-zero projects.
Madam Speaker! These applications, which companies submit to authorities, often contain very sensitive information. It can involve business strategies, production methods, supply chains, and technical solutions. If all of this were to be completely public already at an early stage, there is, according to the government, a great risk that these companies will choose not to invest in Sweden. Therefore, the government proposes that secrecy shall apply to information regarding companies' business and operating conditions if it can be assumed that the company suffers harm if the information is disclosed.
But – and it is important to emphasize – the decisions themselves in the matters shall still be public. It is also important to emphasize that the bill is not about support, credit guarantees or other financial benefits for these projects.
The decisions, the motives, and the authorities' assessments shall be able to be scrutinized. It is not about reducing transparency, but about protecting trade secrets in a global competition.
With this said, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in KU's report, KU7.
Michael Rubbestad (SD)
Madam Speaker! The Government's bill is, at first glance, about something quite technical – secrecy in matters concerning so-called strategic net-zero projects. But behind the rather bureaucratic words hides a question that goes straight to the core of Swedish democracy: How much insight should citizens have in the decisions where the state guides, influences, or invests in the business sector?
The EU's Net-Zero Regulation, which entered into force earlier, aims to strengthen Europe's own capacity to produce the technology needed for the green transition. This applies to everything from batteries and solar panels to hydrogen, carbon storage, and components of nuclear technology. The regulation means that member states can grant certain projects the status of strategic net-zero projects, which in practice means faster permitting processes and a political recognition.
It is natural that companies seeking that status must submit extensive applications. They must be able to show that the projects are technically sustainable and economically viable and contribute to the EU's climate goals. These applications, of course, contain very detailed information about business plans, technical descriptions, and economic calculations. It is this information that the government now wants to keep secret for up to 20 years.
We Sweden Democrats understand that trade secrets obviously need to be protected. No companies should have to risk that their technical innovations or economic strategies end up on their competitors' desks. That is reasonable and necessary. But our view is that the bill goes further than that. It opens the door for extensive secrecy that risks making the entire process inscrutable to the public. It is not reasonable, we believe, in a country that has built its democracy on precisely openness.
Sweden is not just any country in this regard. Already in 1766, we introduced the world's first freedom of the press act with the principle of public access as the underlying idea. For more than 250 years, it has made it possible for citizens, journalists, and researchers to scrutinize authorities and politicians. It has revealed scandals, prevented abuse, and laid the foundation for a trust between state and citizen that few other countries can match.
That is why we react when it is now proposed, with reference to the EU, that almost all documents in these cases should be able to be kept confidential for up to two decades. It is not the EU that requires it. The EU regulation only says that we should protect confidential information – and that is obvious. But how it is done is up to each member state. Sweden could have chosen a somewhat more balanced solution that both protects the companies and preserves transparency.
We mean that this proposal is an example of so-called over-implementation. Sweden simply goes further than what the EU actually requires. It is often done in the belief that we are doing the right thing, but in practice, it comes at the expense of our own values.
The problem we see with the bill is that there is a risk of hiding more than what is necessary. If almost everything in an application becomes subject to secrecy, it becomes quite difficult for the media and the public to understand why certain projects are prioritized, what the calculations look like, and what risks the state actually takes. When it concerns large investments with public support, these questions must be able to withstand scrutiny.
We have seen several examples of when the enthusiasm for the green and the new goes a bit before common sense. Northvolt is perhaps the absolute clearest, and Stegra unfortunately looks to be the absolute latest. Political promises of thousands of jobs and billions in support were presented as the miracles of the future, but in hindsight, we have seen a different reality. It is delays, cost problems, and unclear economic conditions. We believe it would have been good if more of this information had been public from the beginning.
We understand and accept the need for confidentiality, but not quite in the form that the government is now proposing. We believe that confidentiality needs to be limited to information that is truly business-critical. We also believe that the confidentiality should be time-limited in a somewhat more reasonable way. 20 years is an unreasonably long time in an industry where technology and the market can change in just a few years. After a reasonable period, the documents need to be able to be reviewed so that one can evaluate in hindsight whether the decisions were truly wise.
We also propose that independent bodies – it could, for example, be the Swedish National Audit Office – should be given the opportunity for ongoing oversight of the parts that are not public. If the documents cannot be reviewed by the public, someone must, in any case, be able to do so. This is not a lack of trust in the companies, but it is rather a way to protect both them and the state against future misunderstandings, misjudgments, and outright irregularities.
Madam Speaker! It is not just about a paragraph in the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act. It is also about which path Sweden chooses in the encounter between national self-determination and EU regulation. It is about ensuring that we do not lose the openness that has made Sweden strong. When one leans towards Brussels to explain why Swedish principles must yield, it is our duty to remind that democracy actually functions best when people know what is going on and what is happening.
The Sweden Democrats stand for a fairly simple principle: the Swedish people shall know how their money is being used, even when it occurs in the name of the climate or industry. We need green technology, but we also need transparency and accountability. The principle of public access is not an obstacle to development. It is rather a guarantee that development occurs in the right way.
Sweden shall be a country that both attracts investments and safeguards transparency. We believe that we can protect companies' secrets without hiding the state behind closed doors.
Publicity is not old-fashioned – it is timeless. And in times like these, when more and more decisions are made far from people's scrutiny, the Swedish principle of public access needs to be defended perhaps more than ever.
Gudrun Brunegård (KD)
Madam Speaker! Today's matter has caused a number of emails in recent days which seem to be based on what appears to be, at least in part, a misunderstanding. Let me therefore, already at the beginning of my speech, clarify that the proposal on confidentiality only applies during the first part of the process, when a company applies for a project to become a strategic net-zero project. When the company then applies for funds, it is done in the same way as in all other processes, with a public application.
Why should there then be confidentiality in the first part? The reason is simple: It should exist because it may be so early in the process for the companies that they do not want their choice of the best possible technology or their business plans to become public. Furthermore, the confidentiality only applies as long as the harm requirement is met. The harm requirement is straightforward, which means that there is a presumption of publicity. It means that the confidentiality only applies if it can be assumed to cause harm to the individual if the information is disclosed.
A company covered by the EU regulation on net-zero projects may, if the project meets certain criteria, apply to have a project recognized as a strategic net-zero project. It is Tillväxtverket and Statens geologiska undersökning that are responsible for processing the question of recognition.
Having a project recognized as a strategic net-zero project entails a priority status. This means, among other things, that there are deadlines for the examination of permits for such projects. The strategic projects must, however, fulfill all relevant substantive requirements applicable for permits, for example environmental protection requirements, and undergo all formal steps of the permit processes that are relevant for the project.
It is important to clarify that it does not mean any automaticity in receiving support through Swedish tax funds to be recognized as a strategic project. There are no provisions in the EU regulation that give strategic projects a right to or priority for financial support in Sweden compared to other projects. Furthermore, the proposal does not involve any change regarding confidentiality when it comes to the permit application or when applying for financial support for a strategic project. There will therefore be the same opportunity to audit companies applying for, for example, support as there is today.
The reason the government proposes a new secrecy provision is that the information to be included in an application for recognition can be of a very sensitive nature for the project owner. If such information were to become public at an early stage, not least if a competing company were to access the information, it could lead to economic damage for the project owner. This can concern information regarding the best available technology and a business plan that evaluates the project's economic viability.
In the current situation, there is no secrecy legislation that covers corresponding projects. It is therefore the government's proposal to introduce a new paragraph in the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act to protect business and operational secrets in applications for recognition of projects as strategic net-zero projects.
When the company then proceeds in the application process, the same level of public access applies, as I have previously said, as in all other applications for permits and support linked to the business sector.
With this said, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.