Response to interpellation 2022/23:328 on electricity support to municipalities and regions
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD argues that the electricity support is based on consumption and a reference price of 75 öre per kilowatt-hour 1. KD emphasizes that the support is adapted to EU state aid rules with a cap of 20 million kronor 1 and that it is correct that only those who have been exceptionally affected receive support 2. KD claims that they prioritized municipalities and regions in the autumn budget 2 and that they have delivered decisions on offshore wind power as well as paving the way for new nuclear power 2. S argues that the government is abandoning municipal welfare 3 and criticizes that there is a cap for municipalities but not for households 3 4. S considers it unfair that municipalities and regions in northern Sweden receive no support 3 4. S claims that the government chooses to prioritize away northern Sweden despite it being possible to change reference prices to include them 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.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Eva Lindh has asked me whether there will be a cap on the payments of electricity support to municipalities and regions and when it is estimated to be paid out. She has also asked me about the government and I stand by that municipalities and regions in northern Sweden shall not receive any support.
Since 30 May 2023, municipalities and regions can, in accordance with the Ordinance (2023:233) on electricity support to companies, apply for electricity support from Skatteverket. The size of the support is calculated based on the amount of electricity consumed during October 2021 up to and including September 2022, the cost of which exceeds a certain reference price. This is done to find a model for how the electricity support shall be calculated. It is based on the consumption one has already had but is forward-looking.
Since the electricity support aims to alleviate the consequences of exceptionally high electricity prices, a reference price of 75 öre per kilowatt-hour has been determined, which is approximately 25 percent higher than the highest average recorded during the last decade. During the current period we are discussing here, electricity prices in northern Sweden did not reach the level of the reference price, and therefore it is only municipalities and regions that have purchased electricity in electricity areas 3 and 4 that are entitled to electricity support, provided that they have not hedged their electricity during the period.
Sweden, as is well known, has four electricity price areas: 1, 2, 3 and 4. When I speak about electricity price areas 3 and 4, it concerns areas in the southernmost parts of the country.
Municipalities and regions receive a share of the electricity support for companies on the same terms as other legal entities and companies. The support has been adapted to the EU's state aid rules, which has resulted in a limitation of the support amount to a maximum of 20 million kronor.
Regarding the question of when the electricity support to municipalities and regions is expected to be paid out, the application process was opened according to the schedule on May 30, 2023, and the Swedish Tax Agency has begun the payments.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! Municipalities and regions are currently facing a cost crisis due to high electricity prices, increased interest rates, and high inflation. By not providing sufficient state grants in the budget for 2023 and because it has also failed to provide information on any supplements for 2024, the SD-led government is leaving the municipal sector in the lurch.
In this way, the Sweden Democrats and the government are letting the welfare activities become crash pads in the face of the recession. Welfare activities are deteriorating, and staff risk being laid off. In Sweden, it is the municipalities and regions that are responsible for the important welfare in the country. When they do not receive resources, people will notice it when they encounter healthcare or when the students return to school in the autumn.
Right now, all regions are heading towards a deficit already this year. It is the regions that have responsibility for healthcare - the healthcare that the Christian Democrats said they would defend before the election. Now it is clearly visible that it was only words.
Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats' and the government's handling of electricity subsidies to individuals and companies has been criticized on good grounds from many sides. Regarding the electricity subsidy, I can give nothing other than a non-approval.
Promises regarding when and how the electricity subsidies would be paid out have not been kept. No cap was set on the payments to households, which meant that an individual electricity subscriber in southern Sweden managed to receive over 700,000 kronor. In some cases, the electricity subsidies also ended up with companies. The failure regarding secrecy means that no one can scrutinize this. The number of warnings and bankruptcies has increased at a high rate due to the government's inability. Initially, the electricity subsidy was to go to households only in southern Sweden and not in northern Sweden. Then they changed their minds, and that is well and good.
So, to the question that I want to focus on in this debate: the support for the municipal sector, which provides our important welfare. Now, it seems that municipalities and regions in southern Sweden can expect to receive electricity support as compensation for the high electricity costs they have had. But there are some uncertainties that I have also raised in my questions. This concerns, among other things, the cap. There was no cap for households, but there is a cap for companies. Above all, there is a cap that is limited to 20 million for regions and municipalities. SKR (Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner) expects that it affects all regions and the largest municipalities.
Above all, there will be no electricity support for northern Sweden. Once again, the conditions for the upper half of our country are being ignored. It is astonishing and worrying. I interpret the response from the Minister in no other way than that there will be no electricity support for municipalities and regions in northern Sweden.
Peder Björk (S)
Mr. Speaker! When the government and the Sweden Democrats presented their budget last autumn, they chose to make a clear prioritization. They chose to lower taxes for those with high incomes by 13 billion kronor and at the same time not to provide the resources needed by municipalities and regions so that they can fulfill their mandate.
As recently as yesterday, new economic forecasts from Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner were released, showing that all regions in Sweden now assess that they will run a deficit during this year, to the staggering sum of 20 billion kronor. At the same time, the municipalities assess that almost half of them will run large deficits this year. This means that now – despite politicians from right to left having pointed out the lack of resources for the municipalities throughout the spring – one must prepare for the termination of important staff in our common welfare. It is about notices of redundancy for teachers, nursing assistants, and many other professional groups that are incredibly important for our welfare.
In light of all this, an electricity subsidy for municipalities and regions could have been a welcome addition to alleviate the difficult situation one is in. But in that situation, the government chooses to set a cap on the electricity subsidy. Furthermore, they choose to look at only parts of the country. They choose to ignore more than half of the country's geography when proposing this electricity subsidy. In the northern parts of the country, municipalities and regions will not be able to participate in the electricity subsidy at all. It is a matter of municipalities and regions that may be a bit extra vulnerable in this situation. They are often located in rural areas. They have a climate that makes it colder in the winter, and they have other conditions that make it a bit extra challenging there. Then the government chooses to ignore that even those municipalities need electricity subsidies.
My question to the Minister for Energy and Business is obviously: Why has the government chosen not to provide electricity support to municipalities and regions even in northern Sweden?
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Mr. Speaker! It seems to be a strategy from the Social Democrats to repeatedly repeat incorrect information in the chamber and in recurring interpellations. But they do not become any truer because one repeats them more times.
I will repeat this again. It may have been missed by Eva Lindh, with whom I actually have not had the opportunity to have any interpellation debate previously. I was very clear last year: We will not be able to guarantee that there will be any money in the accounts of Swedish households before Christmas. But we promised that there would be a decision in place. We could have the model for all of this in place by November 1. But it even stood on our website – and I said it in several interviews, in speeches and in meetings with citizens, time and again and again – that we would not be able to guarantee when the money would be in the account.
Even regarding the electricity support for companies, we were very clear that it would be subject to further examination, which meant that we could not set a date. I am the first to regret that. But it is important to be honest from the political side. When it is not possible to set a date, it is not possible. We have constantly provided the information that could be provided. This needs to be examined according to all the rules. When it was possible to set a timetable, we did so. We have also adhered to that timetable. These are facts that I think it is important for those listening in the chamber and those listening at home to know.
The second thing I think is important to know is that when the Social Democrats made an electricity price compensation last time, the companies received zero. Now they are getting a substantial amount, which comes both in the form of electricity support to electricity-intensive companies and in the form of a general support to companies if they had a price above a certain level.
The Social Democrats have not put any proposal on the table regarding any other level. It is the third one that I think one should keep track of. The Social Democrats are now standing here in the chamber and have views. Have the Social Democrats then had any other proposal for how the model should look regarding how high a price one should have been affected by and what limit it should be when the calculation is made and the electricity support is established? The answer is no. They have not had any other proposal.
It is directly incorrect to pit north against south. It is not about saying that northern Sweden receives support but not southern Sweden. That was not the setup in round one of the electricity support for households, nor was it in round two. The model has been the same: If one has been exceptionally affected, one receives support. There were two electricity price areas that went over this level in the first round. In the second round, there were four electricity price areas that had gone over the threshold and therefore received the support.
To give a calculation example: In SE2, a regular villa had an electricity price of approximately 15,000 kronor per year, if one counts with 20,000 kilowatt-hours, while it was 30,000 kronor in SE4. This is also directly transferable to the welfare sector. There is an enormous difference between 15,000 and 30,000. Then one can ask: Did S have any electricity price support for municipalities and regions when they ruled? The answer is no. But we have it. It is not perfect, but it is significantly much larger, better and safer.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! Just like the Minister, I will begin by speaking about the timing. I believe that quite a few voters, just as I perceived a date during the entire election campaign: November 1st. It was heard often and very clearly. People are now talking about betrayal. I do not believe that my party colleagues and I are the only ones who think this is strange. And those who promised this knew the circumstances.
It is unreasonable that the Sweden Democrats and the government choose not to compensate the municipal sector in this situation. They are facing a very difficult time - a cost crisis that hits welfare incredibly hard.
I have perceived that the Christian Democrats speak warmly, above all about healthcare but also about elderly care. Now, sufficient resources are not being provided for the welfare to maintain the high quality that we have and, of course, not either to develop what would be needed. It is rather the opposite. Many municipalities and even regions face the fact that they must lay off staff. On that, they will also not compensate for the high electricity prices that they have had.
It is strange that a ceiling has not been introduced for households when a ceiling has been introduced for municipalities and regions. Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner assess that several regions will hit the ceiling and that many large municipalities also will.
The great injustice is felt when it comes to the whole country. For us Social Democrats, a strong welfare in the whole country is incredibly important. Already now, particularly many smaller municipalities are struggling hard to provide the welfare that they want to be able to offer and that people also have a right to, in order to achieve an equal welfare in the whole country.
Many of these municipalities are located in northern Sweden. They are under-compensated when it comes to state grants. They also do not receive compensation for the high electricity prices. This naturally affects welfare. Therefore, it is strange that there is also no compensation specifically for municipalities and regions, since one could change one's mind when it comes to households.
Peder Björk (S)
Mr. Speaker! It is obvious that the Minister for Energy and Business does not want to answer why the government has actively chosen to prioritize away municipalities and regions in northern Sweden. It is of course fine to hide behind reference prices and different time periods. But the fact is that both reference prices and different time periods where electricity consumption is taken into account are political constructions so that one can have a system that can be used to pay out the support.
It is political constructions that can be changed, added to, and expanded. That was actually demonstrated by the government when, after strong pressure, not least from us in the opposition, it changed its mind and provided electricity support not only to households in southern Sweden but later also to households in northern Sweden.
Then it was possible to change both the time period and the reference price. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the reference price for the period during which it was decided to provide support to households in northern Sweden was 165 öre. That was a higher reference price than for the period during which the government chose to provide support to municipalities and regions in southern Sweden.
It would therefore simply have been possible to change and add resources to municipalities and regions in northern Sweden in the same way as was done for households in northern Sweden. That is, the question remains: Why does the government choose not to support municipalities and regions in northern Sweden?
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I begin at the later end that Peder Björk is on. We still start from whether one has been over a certain price level or not. During the entire period that the first electricity support was issued, electricity area 1 and 2 did not stay above that price level. Had they done so, they would also have received electricity support in the first round.
Now the Social Democrats, who in their proposals were not even close to providing electricity support at the levels that we are paying out, have the nerve to complain that a second round of electricity support occurred. It also proceeded from whether one was over a certain level or not. We note that in that round, the price had shot up even for electricity area 1 and 2, and therefore one was included.
The electricity subsidy is based on how high the electricity prices have been. Everyone has had it tough in Sweden. But we have based it on whether one has had electricity prices that have stayed above a certain level or not. During certain periods, prices in electricity area 1 and 2 have been significantly lower than in southern Sweden.
For a regular villa in electricity area 2, one has had electricity prices half as high as in electricity area 4. This is directly transferable to municipalities and regions, to the preschools, the hospitals, and our elderly care homes. If one has operated an elderly care home in Skåne, that elderly care home has generally had twice as high electricity prices as the one in northern Sweden. But everyone has had it tough.
I continue to defend myself against what is being said. It simply isn't true. That is not how the model is constructed. Again: the Social Democrats have not put forward any other proposal at any other price level.
So, regarding the question about municipalities and regions in general. One can note in the autumn budget that the highest priority was to support the municipalities and regions in this situation. It is the largest single consolidated budget item in the budget. We have also been clear that in the budget that comes for next year, we will continue to prioritize municipalities and regions.
The difference in outcomes during the time S was responsible for, for example, healthcare and the time KD was responsible for healthcare clearly shows that it is not just more money that is what is important. It is also whether one dares to steer the welfare or not. Eva Lindh spoke about the need for national governance in the whole country and about equality. The fact is that the healthcare queues more than doubled when S took over the responsibility for healthcare. They did not manage to steer from a national level. They relied too much on 21 different regions.
The inequality is very large. There are even differences in survival depending on in which region one receives care. That is what we are now trying to address. We do this by prioritizing municipalities and regions in our budget but also by daring to steer from a national level.
It is not possible to fully compensate municipalities and regions for increased electricity prices when 3,000 megawatts have been decommissioned in southern Sweden, thereby also reducing transmission capacity. We can only solve this by expanding power production. We have delivered decisions on two offshore wind farms in eight months, compared to S, who delivered one in eight years. We are now paving the way for new nuclear power. That is what will make a difference and ensure that, in the long run, we can achieve stable electricity prices and lower electricity prices in all of Sweden again.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! I will now break with practice and say something directly to the Minister. Come on now, Ebba Busch! No one who is working on welfare or is interested in and passionate about welfare thinks that you are investing in it. To be honest: You keep returning to it, but nominally there is no increase.
We Social Democrats allocated twice as many resources to the welfare system because we fight for it and because it is important. You allocate insufficient resources in the first place.
Mr. Speaker! The government is allocating insufficient resources at the same time as inflation makes it difficult for municipalities and regions. Interest rates are being raised, and furthermore, municipalities and regions in northern Sweden are being told that they will not receive any compensation for the high electricity prices they have. To all regions and the larger municipalities, it is said: No, you only get up to a cap.
Why do you make those types of decisions when you know how it affects welfare, Ebba Busch? Politics and money make a significant difference in the reality that exists. When the municipalities now start needing to lay off staff, it affects people. It affects the students, who get fewer resources in school, and it affects healthcare when you need to lay off staff. No one agrees that the government is investing in welfare.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Mr. Speaker! That is not true. Again: The budget can be read. It was the biggest priority we made in the autumn budget, and we will return to the municipalities and regions.
But it is also about what one does with the funds. When the Christian Democrats were responsible for healthcare, we introduced a queue billion. It halved the healthcare queues. When the Social Democrats took over responsibility after 2014, they went in with surgical precision and removed the measures that had cut the healthcare queues, and the healthcare queues grew significantly long before the pandemic. 163,000 patients had waited illegally long to receive the care they needed when we took over in the autumn. It was 163,000 patients who were betrayed in the Social Democrats' Healthcare Sweden because they wanted to protect a system from the middle of the 1800s instead of steering towards a more equal and national cohesion of healthcare.
These are really tough times now. Why haven't we pushed forward with more money? Well, because we don't want to do that in this situation - in addition to the 55 billion that it may now land on as the final bill for electricity support in two rounds of electricity support to households where the whole country has been treated equally and it has been based on how high the prices have been, even though everyone has had it tough. We have an electricity support for companies that was not included by S, an electricity support for gas customers that was not included by S, and an electricity support in a second variant for precisely electricity-intensive companies. It is historic.
The reason we have not pushed even further is the difficult economic situation. If we, in this situation, drive a recession and high inflation, we risk a situation where households have this offset by high interest rates.
Instead, we have chosen in the budget to say no to S's proposal that people with salary levels like mine should receive more in child allowance. Instead, we have allocated more to particularly vulnerable families, who receive up to 2,100 kronor a month in an increased and extended housing allowance. These are priorities for the most vulnerable and for welfare throughout Sweden - not just in the strong municipalities and regions.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.