Response to interpellation 2022/23:142 on the expansion of offshore wind power
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
L argues that one of the government's highest priorities is to improve the conditions for fossil-free power sources, where wind power holds an important place 1. L argues that the government is working purposefully to streamline the permit processes while maintaining high environmental requirements 1. L argues that the government does not choose a favorite but adapts to reality, where nuclear power can contribute to a stable system while wind power is part of the necessary transition 2. L argues that the government has allocated resources to handle the increased number of applications 2. L argues that fast decisions must not occur at the expense of legal certainty or other interests such as defense and cultural environment 1 3. L argues that Sweden needs both wind power and nuclear power to manage the transition 3. L advocates for a smart energy policy where all types of energy compete on equal terms and where actors bear their own costs 3. L argues that previous governments have created a fragile energy system by shutting down nuclear power 3. L emphasizes that the government is making concrete decisions to expand fossil-free production 4. C argues that nuclear power was shut down due to economic conditions in the companies, not political decisions 5. C argues that decisions on offshore wind power in Kattegat should be made quickly as electricity is needed here and now 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! [The Speaker] has asked me if I intend to take the initiative to achieve a faster permit process for the establishment of new wind power in Sweden. He has also asked me what I intend to do to speed up the government's processing of the applications for offshore wind power in the Swedish economic zone that are now awaiting a decision, and when a decision can be expected for the three projects in Kattegat that are currently on the government's desk.
Initially, I want to assure that one of the government's highest priorities is to improve the conditions for fossil-free power sources in order to increase the production of clean electricity. In that regard, wind power has an important place in the energy mix.
When establishing wind power, several different aspects need to be taken into account. This applies to both offshore and onshore wind power. It involves testing, among other things, conflicting interests, the best possible technology, and the environmental impact that may be relevant in each individual case. Conflicting interests that are considered before a decision on a permit for wind power production can be commercial fishing and nature conservation, but also defense, cultural heritage, and shipping. In addition, the conditions for connecting to the power grid need to be taken into account.
The government is working purposefully to streamline the permit processes while we will continue to have high environmental requirements. The Tidö Agreement describes how Sverigedemokraterna, Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, and Liberalerna shall ensure that the environmental permit processes are simplified and shortened. We are now working on the implementation of the Environmental Assessment Inquiry's proposals and have clarified the incentive inquiry's mandate. A new inquiry will be appointed to simplify and shorten the environmental permit assessment according to the Environmental Code.
At the end of February, the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management and the Swedish Energy Agency are also expected to report on possible measures for coexistence between offshore wind power, commercial fishing, aquaculture, and nature conservation. I look forward to also taking part in that investigation, which will contribute to my work in proposing measures to streamline the permit process for the establishment of offshore wind power.
Madam Speaker! Regarding Christofer Bergenblock's question about what I intend to do to speed up the government's processing of ongoing wind power cases in Sweden's economic zone, I can say that the government continues to handle the cases as quickly and efficiently as possible, without risking legal certainty.
The issues are complex and involve an extensive basis with many different questions. I agree that there is a need to supplement electricity from nuclear power plants with offshore wind power production, but it is also of great importance that the government assesses the questions in the application cases from all aspects and ensures that decisions are made after a full and proper handling.
Regarding the question of when decisions can be expected for the three projects in Kattegatt, I cannot comment on ongoing matters or anticipate the government's upcoming decisions. At the moment, it is not possible to say when the government will make decisions in the matters, but I can say that internal work is ongoing and that we are handling all matters as promptly as we can with regard to Swedish legal certainty.
Christofer Bergenblock (C)
Madam Speaker! I thank you very much for the answer to my interpellation.
Today is exactly one year since Russia's unjust invasion of Ukraine. Even before the invasion, there were problems with the Russian gas deliveries to Europe, and during the year that has passed after the invasion, they have been completely cut off. This has had major consequences for the European energy supply, which has also come to affect Sweden.
Thanks to our large electricity production in Sweden, we have been a net exporter during 2022, with an all-time high in the form of 33.5 terawatt-hours that went out to the rest of Europe. That was 20 percent of our entire production. Every Swedish kilowatt-hour that ticked away to our neighboring countries contributed to reducing the dependence on Russian gas and reducing Putin's war chest and thereby helping Ukraine in the unjust war.
Even though Sweden has a large overproduction of electricity over the whole year, there is a great need to increase Swedish electricity production, in the short perspective of course to help our neighboring countries, but in the long perspective because we need to double our electricity production within the next 15 years to meet the green transition.
Judging by the debate, one might sometimes believe that Sweden has reduced its electricity production in recent years, but the truth is that it has increased year by year and that 2022 was the year when we had the highest electricity production, 170 terawatt-hours, despite that large parts of the nuclear power program were at a standstill during the year. Nevertheless, we need to continue expanding the supply, and we need to do it quickly.
For that reason, it is remarkable that the government has had a one-sided focus on nuclear power in an uncertain future, when the opportunity to expand wind power exists here and now. The government is sitting with eight applications for offshore wind power in the Swedish economic zone, which collectively correspond to the entire Swedish nuclear power program.
Just along the Halland coast, where I come from, there are applications for three offshore wind farms with a combined capacity of 14-15 terawatt-hours. I know that all of this will not be able to be realized, but on the other hand, more stakeholders have already expressed interest in submitting new applications, for example, the Danish company Ørsted.
The interested parties are queuing, the investors have opened their markets, and the county administrative board's investigations are complete. What is the government doing to take advantage of these opportunities? It is this question I have posed to the Minister for Climate and Environment here today. What is the government doing?
The Minister says that she will appoint an inquiry to simplify and shorten the environmental permit processes according to the Environmental Code. That is good. This is something that the Center Party has demanded for a long time. The permit processes need to be shortened. At the same time, we have received demands from the EU regarding precisely shortened processes and opportunities to handle cases faster.
What is the Swedish government doing to speed up processes and decision-making here and now, before the new investigation is finished in a couple of years? There has been talk about a fast track for nuclear power, but we know that even with a fast track, new Swedish nuclear reactors are at least ten years away. The question, therefore, is: What does the government's fast track look like for offshore wind power, where we have the great potential to expand Swedish electricity supply here and now?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! We have a new government. I believe it is enough to look at the newspaper to see how the government, under my and the other ministers' responsibility, chooses to handle Swedish energy production and the Swedish energy system. It is a major issue, which was well-highlighted during the election campaign, and rightly so. That we are discussing this issue so diligently is a consequence of the situation Sweden has had, where we, just as Member Bergenblock points out, have been able to export a lot of energy and help our neighboring countries, but where we have also had great difficulties in putting our own system together.
It is an interesting technical question how it can be the case that one can have a shortage despite having an abundance and being able to export. It is about the fact that we have not had a stable and robust system. To have that, one must be able to plan one's supply, and that cannot be done with power sources such as for example wind power or solar power. But it can be done with for example nuclear power.
This is a problem that the government wants and will handle by reviewing how nuclear power is managed in Sweden and simply changing the perspective we have, where previous governments have favored different types of energy. One can, Madam Speaker, compare it to saying that one cheers for a football team and then manages the energy system in the same way and says that one has wind power as a favorite.
That is not how this government chooses to handle energy policy. It is far more important than choosing a favorite and then remaining in that corner regardless of the situation. It is a matter of adapting to the reality we face. It is, just as Member Bergenblock points out, a reality where we have a great need for energy. We have a great need for specific electricity, in order to manage not only a stable energy system but also the fundamentally important transition that Sweden is currently undergoing.
In this government, we have in many ways handled the energy policy differently. It is partly about reviewing the discrimination, as it can be called, of nuclear power that has persisted for many years due to many parties, including Centerpartiet. But it also concerns, for example, how we handle our offshore wind power. This can involve the investigations that are actually what need to form the basis for a proper change of permit processes and other things, so that in the future we can obtain more reliable, long-term stable and also predictable processes that are also in accordance with what the EU sets as requirements for us.
But there is also much else that can be done to speed up our processes. And in that regard, this government has, among other things, a new Ministry of Climate and Enterprise that can take responsibility for the whole and coordinate these issues concerning, among other things, examinations of offshore wind power in a wiser way. In this coordination, the continental shelf cases and the cases regarding the economic zone are now handled by the same unit. It is a typical example of how this government works to improve these processes.
On January 1, we also added resources to be able to handle the increased number of applications that have arrived. This government has therefore injected extra money - 10 million - so that the Government Offices can handle these issues in a better way. This is simply a consequence of this government choosing to properly take responsibility for the fragile situation we are in regarding energy policy.
Christofer Bergenblock (C)
Madam Speaker! The Minister says that it is important not to choose a favorite. Nevertheless, that is exactly what the Tidö parties have done. They have chosen a favorite in the form of nuclear power, and throughout the entire last parliamentary term and during the election campaign, they have waged a form of culture war against wind power.
It is still the case that wind power, and above all offshore wind power, is the energy source that in the near term can provide us with a large supplement of new electricity in Sweden. We need it, just as the Minister has touched upon. We need to expand the Swedish electricity supply.
But the only decision that has been made so far by the government regarding wind power has been to remove the assignment to Svenska kraftnät to expand the necessary connections to connect the wind power to the transmission grid. The problem is not the principle of who should bear the cost - that can always be discussed, and I know that is the government's starting point - but the problem is that the government is creating uncertainty about whether you as a company within the energy industry can trust the Swedish state or not. And you cannot when the government removes the long-term rules of the game that have applied since 2016.
Changing the economic conditions from one day to the next is both irresponsible and unwise because it can lead to companies hesitating to make the necessary investments that are needed or that new actors who carry out the expansion of offshore wind power are not brought in.
What is needed are stable and predictable processes. But that is not what the government has created.
Now that reality has started to catch up with the government, the tones have also started to change somewhat. Not least, the minister's department head Ebba Busch has performed a political somersault, having gone from saying that one should put a stop to these forests of steel of wind power to now claiming that she has always been positive towards an expansion of wind power. It may not be so confidence-inspiring, but it is obviously positive as long as it holds.
The government's fundamental skepticism towards wind power is also found in the response that the Minister for Climate and Environment gives to my interpellation. The expression that offshore wind power is only a complement to nuclear power shows that the Minister and the government have not kept up with the developments during the 2000s. Wind power accounted for 20 percent of the Swedish electricity supply last year. Nuclear power accounted for 29 percent.
If one is to say anything about complements, it is that both wind power and nuclear power are, in that case, complements to hydropower, which is actually our only predictable and large energy source in this country.
Of these three sources, it is only wind power that has a great potential to grow during the next five to ten years. And it can happen quickly if the government manages to make the decisions that are needed, among others regarding the three large projects in Kattegatt. They have been investigated for a long time. The investigations are finished, and they cover all the aspects needed for the government to now be able to make a collective assessment, weigh interests against each other, establish conditions, and proceed to a decision. But does the government intend to do that, and when does it intend to do so?
From the answers I have received so far, I get more of the feeling that it is not particularly urgent. There is talk about the investigation into more efficient permit processes which will take time to carry out. That is good. But there is also talk about the investigation from the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, and that is also good. But we need a decision on the projects so that they can be started and built in the present. When will this come?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! I am inclined to believe that Member Bergenblock cannot either choose which interest should be set aside. If one is eager to obtain a decision now, one must forgo the legally secure process that Sweden has as a principle. It would therefore be very interesting to hear, if one wants a decision now, which interest it is that Member Bergenblock wants to set aside. Is it Sweden's ability to defend itself? Is it the cultural heritage interests? What is it that should be set aside so that this decision is not prepared in accordance with the processes that exist in the Government Offices?
Madam Speaker! There is much to say about energy policy. And if one wants to speak about how different politicians and representatives have expressed themselves, one can, of course, do so with the person concerned. As a politician, I have run for the Riksdag on the slogan: We need both wind power and nuclear power to manage the transition.
I am very pleased that we in the government base in the Tidö Agreement agreed that we need to pursue a smart energy policy, a much smarter energy policy than previous governments and government bases have pursued, by building level playing fields and letting all types of energy compete on equal terms.
Madam Speaker! That also includes bearing one's own costs. In the same way as one requires those who are to build nuclear power in Sweden to make enormous investment decisions and dare to do so, one needs to require that those who build wind power also make these decisions on a level playing field. That means bearing all costs and that the state does not pay for the cable. It is about building equal rules of the game and letting all actors who want to build energy in Sweden simply do so on equal terms.
Madam Speaker! It may be so that one believes that the only fossil-free energy source that can be expanded at a rapid pace is wind power. Then perhaps one, as former ministers responsible for these issues, sits and watches TV series like Chernobyl and from them has one's image of what nuclear power looks like. But that does not correspond with reality. It definitely does not correspond with the development that has occurred with nuclear power in the world. There, an enormous amount has been researched, and an enormous amount has been invested. It is partly for that reason that one has realized that we must have predictable electricity production to manage an enormous transition that Sweden and the whole world will go through. And that requires much more electricity. It requires that we actually more than double our production over the coming ten years.
Looking at this, one can of course reflect on the fact that wind power and nuclear power account for approximately equal production in Sweden. But it is for the obvious reason that previous governments, with the support of parties such as Centerpartiet, have shut down nuclear power in Sweden - shut down functioning fossil-free production and contributed to creating a fragile energy system that makes Sweden even more vulnerable in a very difficult situation.
I completely share the view that the fantastic hydropower is a huge contribution to Swedish production, and it is incredible that we have it available. But in addition to that, we need much more to manage the situation we are in, and then we need to expand both wind power and nuclear power. That is what this government is working hard on. We do this, among other things, through the longer processes, such as handling investigations. But we also do it by providing funds, concrete kronor, to the Government Offices so that these issues can be handled in the fastest possible way and in the most efficient and legally secure way moving forward.
Christofer Bergenblock (C)
Madam Speaker! It is remarkable that the Minister stands here and speaks of previous governments having shut down the Swedish nuclear power, when we both know very well that it has been shut down due to economic conditions in the companies that have operated the nuclear power – including the state-owned Vattenfall. I do not know how many times both the chairman and the CEO of Vattenfall have repeated why it was shut down.
It is not, however, that debate we are to have now. Even though I understand that the Minister wants to steer this towards nuclear power all the time, it is not that we are to debate now, but it is the wind power.
No one questions that it involves complex issues and difficult decisions when it comes to offshore wind power. It becomes particularly complicated, of course, if one weighs these types of energy against each other and perhaps fundamentally does not have the positive starting point toward wind power that is needed in order to dare to make the decisions that are also needed.
Despite the knowledge that Sweden needs to expand its electricity supply, no progress has been made on these issues. The Minister states that considerations must be made at the Government Offices and interests must be weighed against each other, and no one questions that. But regarding the three parks in Kattegatt for which there are applications, we have received documentation from the County Administrative Board where precisely these considerations are made. Documentation exists regarding shipping, commercial fishing, defense, and the natural environment, and the County Administrative Board has landed on a proposed decision. Of course, the government must examine this in order to be able to make a decision, but it should not have to take years to do so; at most, it should only need to take a couple of months.
I am, therefore, eagerly awaiting these decisions, because we need the electricity from offshore wind power. We can get that here and now, while nuclear power is actually far off.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! I thank Christofer Bergenblock again for a good interpellation and the opportunity to discuss the expansion of offshore wind power.
I believe, thank goodness, that it is quite simple for most voters to see what actually holds true. Do the claims coming from MP Bergenblock hold true that the government would not like wind power, especially offshore wind power? Just yesterday, the government sat and decided on positive news for wind power, and only a few weeks ago I was able to present permits for the cable connection of Kriegers flak.
It is therefore, thank God, difficult for the voters to understand anything other than what they read when they pick up the newspaper, namely that the government chooses to take energy policy more seriously than previous governments have done. This is done by expanding fossil-free production in Sweden, because one sees what situation Sweden is in. One sees what electricity bills are landing in the Swedes' mailboxes. One has gone to the election on a platform of taking greater responsibility in these issues, and one is doing so in a purely concrete way as well.
Madam Speaker! I also want to mention that if we were to turn back the tape and look at who first started talking about nuclear power, it would turn out that my focus was not on nuclear power here. Instead, there was a criticism that the government would favor nuclear power, and I show – not only in words but also in actions – that the government does not. We take these issues more seriously than that.
Many decisions have been made, and many decisions will be made in the future so that we can seriously take responsibility for our energy production in a wiser way than previous governments have done. In that case, it is a matter of not favoring, but simply seeing who can contribute to Swedish production in a wise way. It is both wind power and nuclear power.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.