Response to interpellation 2022/23:285 on hydropower and Sweden's electricity system
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the role of hydropower in a robust and fossil-free energy system. L believes that hydropower has a unique role for the stability and predictability of the electricity system 1 2 3. L argues that it must be investigated how the reassessment of environmental permits affects the system 4 and that it is necessary to expand all fossil-free energy sources, including nuclear power 4. L is willing to review profitable efficiencies 4. S believes that nuclear power and hydropower are good because they are predictable 5. S argues that the electricity system can become robust through battery storage and that one should consider demolishing dams to invest in solar cells and battery capacity 5. S argues that it has never been a plan to prevent small-scale hydropower from obtaining modern environmental permits 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! Joakim Järrebring has asked me if I still intend to change the current system for the review of modern environmental permits.
The need for changes to the system must always be reviewed, against the background of the need to secure a robust energy system capable of responding quickly to the changed demand. On February 16, the government tasked Svenska kraftnät to, together with the Swedish Energy Agency and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, map out what consequences the testing of modern environmental conditions may have for our electricity system and for a secure electricity supply.
Based on this mapping, Svenska kraftnät shall, among other things, identify and describe what negative impact on hydropower capacities is acceptable from a power system perspective in order to maintain a secure electricity supply within Sweden. The authorities shall also review the national target value of 1.5 terawatt-hours and propose how a target value or complementary values can be derived for the capacities necessary for the power system.
The assignment includes quantifying the consequences not only for hydropower's electricity production but also for its regulation capabilities at different time horizons, contributions to power system stability, as well as electricity emergency preparedness capabilities. The assignment shall be reported by September 29 this year at the latest and will constitute an important basis for the government's continued considerations regarding the need to carry out changes to the system.
Parallel to the authorities' mandate, an analytical work is also being conducted within the Government Offices to review the need for other changes. The basis for the analytical work consists, among other things, of the report on the mandate to follow up and analyze the work of providing hydropower with modern environmental conditions, which the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management reported on February 1.
Joakim Järrebring (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Minister!
The last time I and the Minister debated the environmental permits for hydropower, the announcement was that the work on the analysis and assessment of the effects of the tests conducted so far was ongoing in the Government Offices. Based on today's answer, we can state that the work has grown to involve three authorities, which together shall map out the consequences that the tests conducted so far may have for the electricity system and a secure electricity supply. The authorities shall also review and potentially supplement the national target value of 1.5 terawatt-hours.
When the Swedish Energy Agency, Svenska kraftnät and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management presented their report on hydropower's regulatory contribution and value for the electricity system in 2016, it in turn was based on the proposed strategy from 2014 for the balance between hydropower and the aquatic environment, expressed as a limited planning goal for environmental improvement measures in hydropower plants at most 2.3 percent of hydropower's normal production year - what we normally see as the target value of 1.5 terawatt-hours.
The Energy Authority and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management presented that strategy in 2014. The report from 2016 aimed to provide enhanced support to the water authorities in their work to classify a water body as heavily modified water, a so-called KMV classification.
A water body can be defined as heavily modified water if good status cannot be achieved due to physical impact and if the reason is that the activity, which is socio-economically important, cannot be achieved in any other way that is better for the environment. The report divided our more than 2,000 Swedish hydropower plants into three classes.
Class 1 includes 255 power plants, which together account for 98 percent of the installed capacity from hydropower and approximately 98 percent of hydropower's regulation contribution to the electricity system.
Class 2 includes 78 power plants, accounts for 1.3 percent of the installed capacity from hydropower, and constitutes between 3.1 and 0.4 percent of the regulation contribution.
The remaining approximately 1,700 small power plants together account for 0.7 percent of the installed capacity from hydropower and somewhere between 1.1 and 0.1 percent of hydropower's regulation contribution to the electricity system.
For power plants in class 1, the advice in the report is that the reduction of the ability to regulate should be avoided and that KMV and less stringent requirements shall be applied. However, measures may need to be taken according to other legislation, for example the Birds and Habitats Directives, to obtain a modern environmental permit.
For power plants in class 2, the presumption is also that measures that reduce the ability to regulate should be avoided, but here individual assessment is required if equivalent benefit cannot be achieved in a better way for the environment before KMV and less stringent requirements shall be applied.
For small-scale hydropower in class 3, KMV or less stringent requirements should generally not be applied.
My question to the Minister is how she views this division of our hydropower plants and whether the intention with the review is that more small power plants should be covered by a KMV classification.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Part of the answer to Member Järrebrigs question was in my answer to the interpellation, where I explained how we have designed our mandate. One must therefore not only look at the target value for the number of terawatt-hours but also quantify the consequences for factors other than hydropower's electricity production. This applies to factors such as regulation capacity at different time horizons, the contribution to the power system's stability, as well as electricity emergency preparedness capabilities.
What all these small additions indicate is precisely the reason why we are pausing these permit reviews, namely the changed situation Sweden is in regarding our electricity production situation. We need to review the effects of the reassessments of the hydropower and map them. We need to review the national target value precisely because of the changed situation in our electricity market.
We see a great need to secure a robust fossil-free energy system that can quickly respond to the changed needs that Sweden now faces. Sweden is in a different situation, and this government needs to take that into account.
There, hydropower plays a central role, Madam Speaker. Member Järrebring is certainly well aware that hydropower fulfills a fantastic function in our electricity system. Swedish hydropower accounts for about 45 percent of electricity production in a normal year and also has a very great ability to adapt its production to varying needs in order to maintain the power balance in our electricity system. This is very important and something that perhaps has not been spoken about to a sufficient extent from the political side previously.
A need that I have long seen within energy policy is to stop speaking from the perspective of favorites among the different ways we have to produce electricity and energy and instead talk about what needs exist for a fossil-free energy system that can contribute to the transition, to development in our sustainability work, and to electrification not only of Sweden's transport fleet but also of Sweden's industry.
The fundamental basis if we from Sweden's side are to seriously manage the climate crisis is a fossil-free energy system that can truly handle the changed needs that we now have.
Madam Speaker! One could reflect on the changed need solely based on the transition and the pace that Swedish industry and Swedish transport want to maintain in the transition. Now, in addition to this, we have a situation where Europe has unfortunately made itself dependent on Russian gas to an extent that has made the energy system very vulnerable. Sweden has, in this situation, with an increased need for fossil-free energy, chosen to shut down nuclear power instead of expanding all its fossil-free energy.
It is a situation that is unique and where we need to take into account maintaining the balance of power in our electricity system. Therefore, we must have a continued effective utilization of hydropower in Sweden. It will be crucial for this government's work regarding the energy system's need for robustness, which has been lacking, but also for the climate transition and for the work that is taking place in Sweden's transition.
Joakim Järrebring (S)
Madam Speaker! I shall begin by taking a small historical look back.
We have had many debates in this chamber during this parliamentary term - not just me and the Minister - regarding the development of nuclear power in Sweden. For those who may be listening to this debate, it is important to keep in mind that a referendum was held in Sweden on nuclear power. The decision there was that nuclear power should be phased out.
Even though the government belongs to a party that has always been an advocate for nuclear power, the democratic decision has been decommissioning. That was the case until 2016, when we reached an energy agreement that made it possible for new nuclear power to be built in Sweden. We also created better conditions for nuclear power to produce electricity in Sweden with that energy agreement.
I think it is time to put aside all attempts to pin the phase-out of nuclear power on a single party. It was actually democracy in Sweden that decided that nuclear power should be phased out, and this is what has characterized all political decisions up until 2016.
But it was not this we were to discuss, but we were to discuss the hydropower. The keywords for heavily modified water and less stringent requirements are "which cannot be obtained in any other way that is better for the environment". That was therefore my question to the Minister: whether the intention with this pause and review is that more of Sweden's small-scale hydropower plants, which is what it is about, should be covered by a KMV classification.
The guidance regarding KMV states that 98 percent of both the energy production—the installed capacity—and the regulation contribution that hydropower provides are protected under heavily modified water, if one is to call it protected. This provides the possibility to continue delivering electricity and regulation power.
Classifying hydropower as KMV does not mean that different environmental measures do not need to be taken, especially not based on other legislation, for example the Birds and Habitats Directives. However, the requirements for environmental measures become significantly less stringent if a KMV classification is granted.
I have understood that it is possible to receive compensation from Vattenkraftens Miljöfond, which finances 85 percent of the costs for both removal and restoration measures as well as compensation for production losses that, for example, could be invested in a combination of solar cells and battery storage.
Let us assume that the production capacity and the regulation services are equally good, or perhaps even better, in the solar cell option and that the societal services can then be obtained in other ways than through hydropower. Given that the Minister so often emphasizes that the government's environmental policy should be both ambitious and effective, I would like to know the following: Is it the Minister's intention that it is better to invest in solar cells and battery storage to compensate for production losses and regulation, or is it the Minister's intention that changes to the system for examinations of modern environmental permits should lead to more small-scale hydropower plants being able to be classified as significantly modified water?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Regarding the question about the purpose of this suspension, it is, as I explained in my previous speech, simply so that the facilities shall pause their testing given the situation we are in and the changed need for stability in our supply and in our electricity system.
The work that has already been initiated through assignments to Svenska kraftnät is to map out what consequences the trial will have for the electricity system and for a secured electricity supply, to identify what negative impact on hydropower's capacities is acceptable from an electricity system perspective in order to be able to maintain a secure electricity supply in Sweden, and to review the national target of 1.5 terawatt-hours and propose how a target or complementary values can be based on the electricity system's necessary capacities. It is this that is the basis for the pausing of the NAP. It is also this that will be in focus - not changing who is affected by the work.
In this, it becomes clear why the government is pausing the reviews of the environmental conditions for hydropower. It is because hydropower has a somewhat unique role – especially when we have reduced nuclear power in Sweden – in being able to be a dispatchable supply for Sweden given that there are dams. Hydropower has a special role regarding securing our electricity system. Therefore, a supplementation with solar cells is not relevant given what is being discussed here, namely dispatchable production and being able to meet the changed needs we have, as well as being able to handle the changed situation on the electricity market and secure a robust and fossil-free energy production that can meet changed needs and that can respond when we need power balance in our system.
In that situation, it is hydropower and nuclear power - predictable energy supply - that can be taken into account. The Government intends to continue to utilize them in an efficient manner, and that is why the pause is occurring.
These tests exist for a reason, however, and there is a need to improve the impact of hydropower on our environment. That work will continue after this pause, which has been necessary given our electricity supply and our need to have a domestic electricity supply.
It becomes relevant to discuss different types of energy. Member Järrebring raises the solar cell alternative. I raise nuclear power because it is the type of energy that, much like hydropower, is predictable and constitutes the stabilizing factor in our energy system.
Joakim Järrebring (S)
Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats are not at all opposed to more of Sweden's small-scale hydropower plants being allowed to continue their operations. On the contrary, we think it is important. The plan has never been anything other than that the hydropower that exists should be granted modern environmental permits. That is, therefore, not what the question is about.
Nuclear power and hydropower are good because they are predictable; here we are in complete agreement. But nuclear power lacks what is perhaps the most important contribution and which hydropower alone possesses, and that is the ability to regulate the electricity system. One must distinguish between predictability and controllability.
We are able to expand our electricity system quite significantly with intermittent power, i.e., in the form of wind power and solar power, thanks to the fact that we have hydropower as the base. It will continue to be important, but an electricity system can also become robust in other ways than with the technology we have used until now, for example in the form of battery storage.
That is why I thought it was interesting to engage in a discussion with the Minister. Let us start from the premise that a prerequisite for having a hydropower plant significantly modified is that it contributes to the electricity system with a service that cannot be obtained in any other way that is better for the environment. My example was that one can receive money from Vattenkraftens Miljöfond to, instead of making large investments in the hydropower plant, demolish the dam, restore it, and invest in solar cells and battery capacity so that one obtains the same services that the hydropower plant previously delivered. What does the Minister then think is most worth investing in?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! I thank Member Järrebring for the clarification of what was intended with the question. Now I understand Member Järrebring better regarding the point about battery capacity and the possibility of storage.
Of course, the government is willing to look at everything that constitutes an efficiency of our system. If profitability can be achieved while simultaneously taking into account energy supply and energy needs as well as environmental requirements to a greater extent, it is nothing other than welcome and something that one absolutely can look at.
It is, however, important to point out that it is fundamentally about the fact that our electricity system is in a different position than it was a few years ago when this review was taken up. We need to pause and review how the review should be designed given today's changed situation. We need to get a better picture of how the review of hydropower affects our entire system from today's situation, and we need to find out what our electricity system can handle in order to then adapt to, for example, modern environmental conditions or other things so that we can achieve environmental benefits.
It is important to start at the right end. What this government has succeeded in, in contrast to the previous government, is to start from the greatest needs. It was mentioned here that hydropower has been able to allow a large expansion of wind power, which is true. But nuclear power was also needed here. We need to expand all fossil-free types of energy, and we need to ensure that hydropower can contribute to our energy system in the best way. We do this by planning carefully and thinking before we act.
Hopefully we will be able to continue the work with a strong fossil-free energy system even in the future.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.