Subsidiarity assessment of the Commission's proposal on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure and the acceleration of permit procedures

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal for a decision.

What we are now going to discuss concerns the Committee on Enterprise's report NU26. The Speaker stated the long title of the matter. I will try to simplify and state what it is about. It is a type of matter that is not handled so often in this chamber. I believe it is the second time for the Committee on Enterprise this parliamentary term.

What does this mean in substance? Well, the EU Commission has come forward with a proposal that is briefly and simplified called the net package in the media. The purpose is to strengthen the EU's common energy union by, among other things, increasing the common investments in energy infrastructure.

To finance this, it is desired that parts of the so-called bottleneck revenues that have arisen in, for example, Sweden should be passed on from, in our case, Svenska kraftnät to the EU, which in turn shall decide where they should be invested for the greatest common European benefit. The deficiencies in the Swedish electricity system that have caused our bottleneck revenues, where we need to invest to resolve the deficiencies at home, shall therefore instead be passed on to Brussels to be invested in, for example, the German energy infrastructure.

It would involve approximately 20 billion of the existing bottleneck revenues being allocated to bureaucrats in Brussels who will make an assessment of where they should be invested, instead of us getting an opportunity to invest them here at home.

The process with these proposals is such that they are handled in substance from the Swedish standpoint ahead of upcoming Council of Ministers meetings. The Tidö parties have a very critical position in substance and oppose the content of the proposal. But that is not actually what we are debating today. Instead, we are debating the issue more in terms of form than in substance.

A unanimous Committee on Industry has taken the position that the proposal violates the subsidiarity principle and the proportionality principle. It is therefore that we are submitting a reasoned opinion to the Commission.

Simplified, it means that all eight parties in the Swedish Riksdag, regardless of any nuance differences in their view on the proposal's substantive content, consider that this is not an EU competence. The committee considers that the EU is going too far beyond its existing powers and considers that the Swedish bottleneck revenues and the Swedish energy infrastructure are best managed by Sweden and not by the EU.

It is pleasing, if not surprising, that we were able to find agreement on this issue. The communication will then be sent to the other parliaments once we have made the decision here in the Riksdag. I have also, in my capacity as committee chair, sent the communication to my counterparts around the EU. I know that the Speaker is doing the same to his Speaker colleagues. I have noted that there is a letter on its way from the government as well.

We are trying from all sides and angles, both in form and in substance, to put a stop to Swedish bottleneck revenues being used to finance energy infrastructure in other countries.

This is expressed in significantly better bureaucratic terms than what I am presenting here in the chamber in the report we are taking a position on. But I have made an attempt to translate what it means in practice.

The committee does not, therefore, consider this to be an EU competence but rather something that we should handle in Sweden. All eight parties therefore believe that the EU should back away from this proposal, not only based on the substantive content but also in terms of the form. Consequently, we believe that it violates the subsidiarity principle and the proportionality principle.

I hope that this explanation justifies our proposal in the report. I move again for the proposal to be approved.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is one of the countries in the EU that, over the last decade, or slightly more than that, has added more electricity production. Our electricity production is also almost 100 percent fossil-free. We are at the top of the countries that export electricity to others. Our cables to other EU countries are used almost exclusively for export. The number of import hours is incredibly few.

When the EU Commission presents a proposal that threatens to confiscate bottleneck revenues arising in Sweden due to our insufficient grid capacity, it is not only outrageous but also directly counterproductive. They are going after those who are best in class and who already contribute the most to the union's benefit.

For us, it is obvious that the bottleneck revenues should remain in Sweden. They belong to us. They are collected to be used to help finance improvements in our electricity system. We pay with our own money.

Now it is up to the government not only to powerfully distance itself from the proposal that the bottleneck revenues should be paid to the EU but also to gather support from other EU countries that understand that it is counterproductive and dangerous to handle our common work in the EU in that way.

When it comes to the government's job of creating support for Sweden, one can actually become a bit worried. The question is really what the government has done during the time that the EU Commission has worked on the proposal. What discussions have been had, and what demands have been set? We do not know that today. It is a way of working in the EU where one needs to be very active.

It is clear that we Social Democrats for three years have highlighted that it is important that the government pushes in the EU that we ourselves should be able to decide over our bottleneck revenues and how they should be used. We had that possibility a bit earlier, but it has been negotiated away under the SD government. Despite the fact that Sweden was the chair of the EU in 2023 and had unique opportunities to make contacts, build alliances and put issues on the agenda, the government sloppily let that opportunity slip away.

So, we are now standing here in what risks being a negotiating uphill battle because the government did not have the strength to act when time was of the essence. It risks costing the Swedish people very dearly.

That we are now in agreement on this issue in the Committee on Industry is absolutely excellent. But a very heavy responsibility rests on the government to repair the damage that has arisen from its own passivity. I move to approve the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Bottleneck revenues arise when there are price differences between electricity areas. In Sweden, this means in practice when electricity is transported from the north to the south. The money is paid by those in southern Sweden and goes into an account at the National Debt Office. The electricity companies do not, therefore, receive these funds.

Right now, there are 85 billion on this account at the National Debt Office. These are funds that are practically gathering dust and which could do incredibly much more good than just lying with the National Debt Office.

Now the Commission wants parts of these funds to go to transfers between other countries. I understand the Commission; they are eager to find new funds that someone else pays for. But for our part – and this applies to both the Committee on Industry and, not least, the Center Party – the message to the Commission is very clear: Do not touch our money!

What would, however, be welcome would be if the commission could put much greater pressure on Germany so that the country introduces electricity price zones. That would mean a significant difference for the electricity price in southern Sweden. If not otherwise, the government should do as the Danes did towards Sweden and put much greater pressure. That is why we have electricity zones in Sweden.

It would also be welcome if the commission clarified and expanded the regulations regarding congestion rents that exist. Then we would have been able to a greater extent expand the offshore grid so that we could start more electricity production in southern Sweden. This would have remedied the problems, lowered the prices, and actually also reduced the congestion rents. Had the transmission been expanded faster and better, this would also have reduced the rents and the price differences.

The problem is also that the government does not govern its agency Svenska kraftnät clearly enough. It is, in fact, Svenska kraftnät that is made responsible for the revenues. Here we have, therefore, opposing incentives: The company and business enterprise that are supposed to build away the differences earn money on the differences. Here lies a very heavy responsibility on the government to govern its business enterprise in a significantly better way.

It would also have been good if it had been clearer that one, if one wishes, can build out cables to other countries oneself. It could have meant that we could access Norwegian hydropower, for example. It would also have lowered prices in Sweden. We might also have been able to use the bottleneck effects in a much clearer way to realize an electricity subsidy during high prices.

It is obvious that none of this is something that the government has taken up in the dialogue with the commission. Instead, they are letting the process run its course, and now we are in a very serious situation – so serious that the Committee on Industry of the Riksdag must say, completely united, to the commission that this has gone too far.

It is good that we have agreement. But now the government must push forward and ensure that this agreement also becomes a reality in Brussels. In that case, one also needs to come up with other proposals so that we can use the money to lower Swedes' electricity costs, not least in southern Sweden.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 14.)

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