Response to interpellation 2022/23:163 on the future of the Swedish-Danish Tunnel Authority

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I have been asked whether the government intends to take any general initiatives so that the future of Öresundsverket can be secured and what measures the government and I plan to take to increase electricity and energy production in southern Sweden in the near term and thereby contribute to the southern Swedish preparedness.

On 15 December 2022, the government decided on a mandate to Affärsverket svenska kraftnät and Statens energimyndighet - sometimes referred to simply as Svenska kraftnät and Energimyndigheten - to strengthen the security of supply in the energy sector in the short and long term. Among other things, the mandate includes that Svenska kraftnät shall carry out preparatory measures to expand the power reserve or equivalent agreements with electricity producers to secure resource sufficiency for Sweden until and including 16 March 2025. The sub-mandate shall be reported by 28 April, well in advance of next winter.

In addition, Svenska kraftnät shall propose a design of future capacity mechanisms to ensure resource adequacy, map the potential in existing and untapped electricity production, and submit proposals on how ancillary service markets, including protection and restoration services, can be designed to provide incentives for ancillary service providers to contribute to a robust and efficient electricity supply.

Furthermore, the Swedish Energy Agency, with the support of Svenska kraftnät, shall map the potential in existing and untapped electricity production and propose an indicative dimensioning for secure electricity supply and electricity supply for the needs of the total defense.

I do not intend to precede the conclusions of Svenska kraftnät and the Energy Agency and can therefore at this moment not answer what role Öresundsverket will play for the electricity supply in southern Sweden.

I can however state that this government, during its first two months in power, has already taken steps to undertake all the measures that Joakim Sandell points out. This has been done to provide Sweden's electricity system with the best conditions to ensure a secure electricity supply as quickly as possible.

In addition to providing relevant authorities with the conditions to clarify what is required for the electricity system to deliver a secure electricity supply, the government has taken a number of measures so that new electricity production can be built and existing electricity production can be maintained.

We have, among other things, initiated a new energy policy goal of 100 percent fossil-free, we have referred a proposal to remove prohibitions on building new reactors, both the limitation in number and location, and we are abolishing taxes on combined heat and power production.

We have also taken measures to enable faster permit processes for both electricity production and electricity transmission. As an example, Energimarknadsinspektionen has received 25 million kronor in increased appropriations for the current year to, among other things, intensify the work regarding just permit processes.

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

Joakim Sandell (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer to my interpellation.

Let me provide some background, as not everyone may be familiar with Öresundsverket. In the current situation, electricity price area 4, which is southern Sweden, lacks the conditions to fulfill the relevant legislation for emergency situations, reconstruction, risk preparedness, and electricity preparedness from a total defense perspective. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to quickly expand Swedish electricity and energy production, not least in southern Sweden.

The situation is acute, not least for households and companies in southern Sweden, and measures that can alleviate the situation in the near term need to be prioritized.

Öresundsverket is a gas-fired power plant located in Malmö with capacity for both electricity and district heating production through natural gas. The plant underwent a major modernization that was completed in 2009, the purpose of which was to compensate for the electricity production that was lost with the closure of Barsebäck 1 and 2. The plant has an electricity production with a maximum output of 440 megawatts, and the production capacity for district heating is 250 megawatts.

We just debated district heating and district heating prices in an interpellation debate last week.

If Öresundsverket were in full operation, Skåne could also be provided with an additional power capacity of a further 200 megawatts, thanks to the fact that the expanded Sydvästlänken could then be utilized at full capacity.

In 2019, Svenska kraftnät was to conduct a procurement of an extra power reserve, that is, an agreement with an electricity producer who can ensure that there is enough electricity when electricity consumption is at its highest. Only one bid was received, and it was from Öresundsverket, the combined heat and power plant in Malmö.

The radio program Kaliber on P1 has produced an interesting report on precisely the handling of this procurement. In the report, the Director General of Svenska kraftnät states that in 2019 there was a bid that they did not want to accept because it was too high. The Director General further answers that it is reasonable to assume that the actors who were previously prepared to disconnect would likely act on price signals in the future and thereby reduce the load during peak demand.

This means in plain terms that Svenska kraftnät has assumed that the industrial companies themselves shall take responsibility for reducing their electricity consumption in the event of a risk of electricity shortage. To the point, there were previously agreements with these companies that they would reduce their electricity usage in exchange for compensation, but these agreements no longer exist. It could be a way to proceed in this matter.

In view of this, and given that there is a risk of disconnection that will cost the companies money, I intended to ask the Minister whether the government intends to take any initiatives to get these agreements in place so that the companies can manage without financial damage, in the event that there should be a power shortage in Skåne.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Joakim Sandell and I agree on one thing: there is no energy production to speak of in southern Sweden, that is to say in the Malmö region. As a nation, we have shut down Barsebäck, and Öresundsverket is not in operation. This is a problem that we see in Sweden today in light of the prices we have. I think that the Minister for Enterprise in his answer demonstrates in an exemplary manner how he intends to work forward with this to increase security of supply, not only in energy area 4 but also in other areas, for example energy area 3, where I live.

There is an implementation of an EU regulatory framework, a Commission regulation that already existed in 2018. The government at that time has therefore had eight years to implement this and actually secure the supply even in electricity area 4. I can only state that the then Social Democratic government over eight years did not take into account that this problem could arise, i.e., that one could face an emergency where one does not have enough energy. They relied completely on the fact that it would be solved by streamlining, which we know it does not do.

I mean that it is quite bold of a Social Democratic Member of Parliament to stand at the rostrum and speak for a government that has been in power for two months, saying that they are going to solve a problem that they themselves have not solved in eight years. I would like to ask the Member of Parliament from the Socialdemokraterna: How did the Member of Parliament influence his own government, which sat for eight years and did not solve the problem, when he thinks it is perfectly okay to stand at the rostrum and demand an answer from the Minister for Enterprise after two months?

The Member of Parliament also brought up the radio program Kaliber, and I mean that it was entirely correct that they went to Svenska kraftnät. What the Member of Parliament did not speak about, however, is that other stakeholders have also criticized the then Swedish government. The European supervisory authority spoke quite early, in 2021, about the Swedish government not meeting the requirements. Even Svenska kraftnät spoke as recently as 2022 about the Swedish government not meeting the requirements. Then I wonder what the social democratic government actually did, if they ducked or if they believed that this would be resolved in some other way.

My question to the Member of Parliament is: Why have the Social Democrats not taken this situation seriously? Malmö is left without its own energy supply, and people are turning a blind eye. Why did one want to create the situation where the Malmö region actually does not have its own energy supply, but instead relies on the idea that one will achieve energy efficiency? I think it is very strange that one creates that situation for all Malmö residents. I would like to have answers from the Member of Parliament to these two questions.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to make a few points, and I will start with the question of power. As Member of Parliament Sandell very rightly points out, this project could generate, in two different parts, one could say, the equivalent of 700 megawatts, but it also provides a potential increased transmission capacity of 200.

It is not entirely easy for those who try to keep up with all the electricity and energy discussions, not least in the media over the years: Do we have an electricity shortage or not? We have a capacity problem - we have a good deal of potential in very many different types of power; one can say that when things are running at full capacity, a lot of electricity is produced. But we have a capacity shortage, because at any given time we do not know exactly how much we have, and we do not have enough where it is needed when it is needed. For those who listen to this at home in their TV sofas and sometimes think it sounds like the politicians are talking past each other on the issue of energy supply, it often has much to do with mixing up electricity production in general - what potential we have in the types of power we have today - and capacity.

That is why, just as Member Sandell very rightly points out, we have a need to review that we have sufficiently much where it is needed when it is needed. This applies particularly in a situation where Sweden is now expected to increase its electricity consumption by at least double until 2045 if we are to meet the climate challenge, reach our high climate goals, manage the green transition and at the same time secure jobs and Swedish competitiveness so that Swedish mothers and fathers have a job to go to and the opportunity to secure their own livelihood.

With that said, I want to make an additional point, and it concerns the issue of the total defense perspective. I am very pleased that this is now coming up in the debate to a greater extent. It is an important part of the mandate that we gave to our agencies on December 15; it is factored into this. I want to make a small side note that this type of regulatory framework that exists for emergency situations and various types of risk preparedness as well as electricity preparedness is not clearly stipulated per electricity area level. But the functions obviously affect things if one needs to look at the whole in different parts of the country.

A great deal of what is requested in the member's interpellation, I believe, we have addressed primarily with the assignment on December 15. We look forward to receiving feedback in April and seeing what this yields. It is the authorities' responsibility to execute based on these assignments, and we look forward to hearing what they come back with.

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

Joakim Sandell (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! Then we shall have to see what happens at the end of April and if we can get any answer from Svenska kraftnät when it comes to Öresundsverket.

Quite a lot has happened in Swedish politics over the past year, which of course has also had an impact on how we view energy and electricity policy. It has been almost a year since the Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24. This has led to reassessments of old truths. A unanimous Riksdag has actually decided, for the first time since the Finnish Winter War, to send weapons to a country at war. That was not an option before February 24 last year, if I remember correctly. In the same way, we have seen a shift in public opinion regarding the view on Nato membership. There is now a clear majority in the chamber for us to join Nato.

Taking all this into consideration, I believe that one must be prepared to reconsider old decisions and old truths, also in the area of electricity production. The situation we were in in 2017-2019 differs from the situation we find ourselves in today. Therefore, I believe it is reasonable for a Member of Parliament to ask the current government what it intends to do in this matter rather than turning to the old government and asking what it should have done. That is why I, as a Member of Parliament, submitted the interpellation to the current Minister Ebba Busch.

The second part concerns the definition of proximity and energy production. The question is what can be done to quickly establish electricity production in southern Sweden. The Öresund is in many ways particularly interesting for the establishment of offshore wind power, considering, among other things, wind resources, relatively shallow water depths, and the possibility of connecting wind farms to existing power grid infrastructure.

There are proposals regarding locations in the Öresund region that would be very advantageous considering the large electricity consumption of both households and industries, as well as the fact that there is a large deficit in electricity production in the region.

There is, for example, a planned wind farm called Sjollen which could contribute 1.1-1.3 terawatt-hours of electricity every year. Today, the production is 3 terawatt. The question is what we have done. I am a Social Democrat from Malmö, and we have welcomed the decision. But from our surrounding municipalities, we receive interesting answers, including from the Moderate-led Lomma, which argues that the Öresund is an unsuitable location given the marine values that exist there.

At the same time, Lomma has opened up to potentially viewing new establishments positively if the establishment occurs in Danish waters. It is fascinating how the Prime Minister's party views offshore wind turbines in the Öresund. It works if it is on the Danish side of the territorial border.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I am a person who appreciates that politicians dare to take new initiatives and take new positions if something happens in Sweden or abroad. The war in Ukraine and Nato have, of course, changed our view on many different things.

When it comes to the energy supply, the EU Commission has been clear about what is needed to handle, for example, situations where emergency power is needed. That is why the Commission regulation was established and was to be implemented in Sweden in 2018. There, I mean at least, that a government that for eight years has not implemented this and which receives criticism for it from its own agency has not fulfilled its duty. I do not think one can blame a war that started in 2022 or the Nato application during the same year. For seven years, one could have solved the task, and then the situation might not have been good now, but much better. I do not think that this can be blamed on the current government.

The Minister for Enterprise has, in an exemplary manner, stated what has been done during the past two months and what is expected in the coming months. It is a fact that the government at that time did not take this seriously.

Joakim Sandell has not answered a single one of my questions. What has Joakim Sandell done to influence his own government during the eight years, for example, so that Öresundsverket would remain and so that there would be power supply in southern Sweden? What is it that makes it possible to claim that the Swedish government did its job during eight years when it de facto did not do so when it comes to the energy supply?

I would like to have answers to these two questions. You have one post remaining, Joakim Sandell.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to return to Sandell's question regarding how we are to secure more power production in the short term. I want to elaborate slightly on my answer and the measures that the government has taken.

I want to emphasize that a major shift will occur now that Sweden is changing the goal from 100 percent renewable to 100 percent fossil-free. This is because we are in a situation where we need to consolidate power. We need to release as much power production as is possible, and it needs to be emission-free. We need to focus less on exactly which types of technology are used; politics does not need to interfere and direct it.

Hopefully, much will happen in the field of research and innovation in the coming years that will mean we might even have completely new technology in the future that has not yet been discovered. Then, as said, the focus needs to be on it being emission-free and on which properties are needed to ensure not only operational reliability and such things that have been looked at and much time and effort have been spent on, but also that the entire system itself is robust, that the system delivers enough electricity where and when it is needed, regardless of where in the country one is located, and that the system can manage to balance in difficult situations. Different types of power sources are then needed because these have different properties. This was a bit about the goal of 100 percent fossil-free.

It is a big step that we have said we now need to move away from the fact that one is only allowed to build nuclear power in certain places and only a certain number. We are now lifting this restriction. The proposal was sent for consultation on January 11 this year. On December 13, before the turn of the year, the Riksdag decided to abolish the waste incineration tax and the carbon tax for power and heat production in an attempt to release a bit more there as well. This entered into force on January 1, 2023.

I shall say something about the permit processes. It concerns both electricity production and electricity transmission. Important work is underway with two investigations, the Climate Justice Investigation and the Environmental Assessment Investigation, which will have an effect on wind power. That is at least the plan. We welcome wind power in Sweden. It looks bright for those who want to continue to invest in both land-based and offshore wind power in Sweden moving forward.

In the debate, there has been an image that it would go so incredibly fast with wind power. As Svensk Vindkraft itself showed in a report from the spring last year, the truth is unfortunately that it takes 12 ½ to 17 ½ years to establish offshore wind power. It is absurd – those are far too long lead times. That is why the government, now in the new Ministry of Climate and Enterprise, is putting so much time and effort into reviewing and shortening the permit processes so that the legislation we have for environment and climate goes hand in hand with the needs of both our households and our companies.

We will not lift the municipal veto, but where wind power is welcome, it shall be truly welcome. There, we intend to facilitate and try to pave the way forward. We believe this will make a difference.

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

Joakim Sandell (S)

Mr. Speaker! In addition to Öresundsverket, the interpellation had its starting point in the question of expanding production in the near term. We must be honest that it takes time from start to finish with offshore wind power. It also takes time from start to finish to build new nuclear power. On the other hand, there are a number of permits on the government's desk that could be completed much faster than the up to 17 years that the Minister spoke about.

I highlighted the proposal regarding wind turbines in the Öresund which could provide up to 1.3 terawatt-hours. It is estimated to be in place by 2027-2028, which, in terms of electricity, must be said to be in the relatively near future. There are, as mentioned, other permits as well that are awaiting a decision on the government's table.

The question linked to the decisions that the government intends to make is: When can we residents of Skåne and others look forward to these decisions?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I view positively that we are united in the will to shorten the permit processes.

If you think it's getting tedious, you have to cover your ears now, but there is a problem. You can think what you want about what led up to it, but we face the fact that four nuclear reactors have disappeared over the last eight years.

But besides that, there were quite advanced plans for two new nuclear reactors from Vattenfall's side until 2012. In 2014, they put it in the dustbin.

Think if we had had eight more years and had been eight years into the planning of new reactors that could have stood for 60-80 years while we worked with the offshore wind power. It really could have become a very powerful combination.

I think my cabinet colleague, Minister for Climate and Environment Romina Pourmokhtari, expressed it wisely when she pointed out that nothing lies on the government's table without it being worked on very actively. Nothing is lying around gathering dust.

I do not mean that the member has claimed that we are dragging our feet. But I just want to emphasize that we are working very actively on this.

There are many different wills and considerations that must be weighed. The Armed Forces shall also have their say in this difficult security policy situation. But we do what we can from the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise's side to maintain a high pace regarding the applications that are nevertheless on the government's table.

In conclusion, I would like to say to those who think the answer was a bit technical and complicated and to those residents of Skåne who wonder if Öresundsverket could contribute in this situation: Yes, but it would be inappropriate if I, as minister, pointed and said that this is what is now to be bought back, or how it is to be done, and that it is to be used in exactly this way.

But on the question of whether it has the potential to contribute more megawatts and furthermore increased transmission capacity, my answer is yes. But it is up to the authorities to assess in what way.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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