Response to interpellation 2022/23:334 on electricity support for companies
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD claims that the electricity subsidy has been handled with precision and that the government has worked expeditiously with the energy crisis 1. KD argues that the principles are based on revenues from overloading and that the reference price takes into account bottleneck revenues 1. KD denies accusations of inaccessibility and emphasizes that they respect the Riksdag's instruments 2 3. KD wants a realistic plan for electricity production and proposes a general reduction of the energy tax 4. S criticizes the government for being slow, not fulfilling election promises, or preserving EU exemptions 5. S argues that the order violates the norm hierarchy and creates uncertainty for companies 6 7. S proposes a model where the state signs long-term contracts to lower electricity prices 8.
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! As some have understood, we will be staying here in the chamber for a while today.
Niklas Karlsson has asked me within which electricity price areas companies will be eligible for support and what principles underlie the government's selection of which electricity price areas shall be covered. He has also asked me when the electricity support to the companies will be paid out and whether the companies will be able to feel secure that the amounts paid out are actually theirs to use.
I want to begin by rejecting the criticism that the electricity subsidies have been significantly delayed and carelessly handled. Sweden is in a serious energy crisis, and the government has worked expeditiously to manage the crisis in the short and long term by both consolidating power, saving energy, and supporting households and companies. The handling of the electricity subsidies has been managed with great precision, and the government has been eager to adhere to the announced timelines for payment.
The principles for the electricity support to companies are based on the basic model described in Svenska kraftnät's application to Energimarknadsinspektionen from November 15, 2022, regarding the use of revenues from congestion to finance emergency measures for consumers and companies. It is stated there that electricity support shall not be paid out at normal price levels. Based on historical price levels, a reference price of 75 öre per kilowatt-hour has therefore been determined, which is approximately 25 percent higher than the highest average value recorded over the last decade. The determined level of the reference price also takes into account Svenska kraftnät's access to congestion revenues.
The calculation of the support's size is based on the amount of electricity that has been taken out for consumption during October 2021 up to and including September 2022. Since electricity customers in the north during that period have had a lower average electricity price than 75 öre per kilowatt-hour, it is only companies and organizations in electricity areas 3 and 4 that are entitled to electricity support, provided that they have not hedged their electricity during the period in question.
Regarding Niklas Karlsson's hint about deficiencies in the legal approach of the electricity support, I want to clarify that the authorities handle payments and current clawbacks in accordance with current legislation.
Affected companies and organizations have been able to apply for electricity support from Skatteverket since 30 May 2023. All companies that meet the requirements to receive electricity support should be able to feel secure that the amounts paid out are actually theirs to use.
Niklas Karlsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! I thought I would begin with a brief historical overview, the reason why the interpellation has been drafted and why we are in the chamber of the Swedish Riksdag to discuss this issue today.
The Minister for Finance's State Secretary contacted me early in the process of preparing the proposal on electricity support for companies in my capacity as Chairman of the Committee on Taxation and said that this was a process they wanted to maintain a high pace in. The State Secretary asked if we in the Committee on Taxation could imagine keeping the process as short as possible, including a shortened period for submitting motions. The answer to that was naturally obvious, as this is an urgent matter. We must get the supports in place.
It also meant that the Secretary of State came to the committee and answered some questions and provided information about the process and what would happen moving forward. What happened then was that the committee members thought it was reasonable that the responsible Minister also came to the Committee on Taxation and answered the reflections and questions that were held at the time. The responsible Minister in the Committee on Taxation is the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance owned a part of the issue, while Minister for Enterprise Ebba Busch owned another part.
It meant that the Committee on Taxation, in turn, spoke with the Committee on Enterprise and asked if it was possible to participate in the meeting where the Minister for Enterprise would be attending the Committee on Enterprise to provide information on the same matter. This was done on 14 April, in order to be able to participate in a joint meeting on 20 April. The response from the Chairman and the Presidium of the Committee on Enterprise was: Of course, this can be handled.
Three days later, a new announcement came from the chairman of the Committee on Industry regarding that they were not prepared to let the members of the Committee on Taxation participate in the meeting and ask the questions they had. One of the reasons for this was that the Ministry of Enterprise, headed by Minister for Enterprise Ebba Busch, did not think that they should answer questions from the Committee on Taxation. She felt that the question belonged in the Committee on Industry.
For me as a member of Parliament, it is an important principle that it is the Riksdag, not the government, that decides how the Riksdag shall work. The Prime Minister forms his or her government as he or she wishes, appoints his or her own ministers, and can organize his or her departments as he or she sees fit. This means that the Riksdag is not always a mirror of the government's work. It must, in turn, mean that if the Riksdag and a specific committee want a minister to come to the Riksdag to answer questions and reflections during the process, the responsible minister says yes. It is completely obvious to me.
Just this attitude that persists from the government's side, and not least the Minister for Enterprise's side, Mr. Speaker, is if not indecent, at least truly remarkable. Throughout the entire process, they have made themselves inaccessible. They have made themselves inaccessible to the media. They have only as a last resort turned to the Swedish Riksdag to answer questions. In some way, they have tried to flee from the responsibility they have as government representatives.
This is my first and most serious criticism. Why should we need to have an interpellation debate in the Swedish Riksdag on an issue where the members of the Riksdag wanted to ask questions and receive answers during the process of the matter before we made a decision? Now we must stand in the chamber when the decision has been made to ask the questions that the members of the Riksdag should have been able to ask at other times.
Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)
Mr. Speaker! The electricity support for companies has been anything but correctly managed. A slow-moving government that failed to fulfill its election promise regarding electricity support by November 1, 2022, has made the situation unsustainable for very many business owners. Not least many small business owners who already had quite small margins have seen their businesses collapse.
Even though electricity prices are relatively quite low right now, we are nevertheless in a serious energy crisis across Europe.
Congestion revenue arises when the electricity price in an electricity area where the electricity is produced is lower than in the electricity area to which it is to be transferred. The difference is called congestion revenue. The congestion revenue is given to the company that transfers the electricity between the electricity areas.
The Social Democratic government succeeded in obtaining exemptions from the EU to return the bottleneck revenues from the electricity market to households and companies. It was important to support the households and companies that were hit hardest by the energy crisis.
In 2023, Sweden was the chair of the EU, and the new electricity market design that has been presented was developed under the leadership of Ebba Busch. Despite this, the Minister has not acted to retain these exceptions, and now the possibility to return money from the market to ordinary people and companies next winter is missing.
How has it come to this, Mr. Speaker? The energy crisis is one of the most serious crises we are facing, and we have a long way to go until we achieve a stable and fossil-free electricity production that is not dependent on fossil power sources from rogue states. Despite this, the government has not acted to support households and companies as early as next winter.
The only answer this government has to the energy crisis is new nuclear power. Now the government has also presented a new energy policy goal of 100 percent fossil-free by 2040, a goal that is already practically fulfilled. These are quite low ambitions from the government. Is nothing to happen until 2040, Ebba Bush? Will Swedish households and companies, especially in southern Sweden, have to put up with high electricity prices until 2040?
The answer cannot just be nuclear power. The answer is to invest in all good types of power. We need much more offshore wind power, but in that regard, this government has worsened the conditions for the establishment of such. So what is the plan?
There does not seem to be any plan or any consensus regarding the energy supply within the government support. Some even want to remove existing wind power. There is also no plan for how the government will support households and companies next winter, and now the government has bungled away the possibility of returning bottleneck revenues from the market to households and companies.
I know that the Minister is not a great supporter of various types of state aid. But I do not believe that anyone here is delighted with the situation we are in with a war in Europe, a burning climate crisis, or for that matter, a right-wing extremist-led government in Sweden that seems to be paralyzed in action.
During this round of electricity support, no high-cost protection was introduced for electricity consumers despite the promise made during the election campaign - yet another broken promise. The design of the electricity support intended to support households and companies arrived late or not at all, and the very largest sums have gone to those who do not need to fill their bank accounts any further. It is beginning to become obvious why the government kept the electricity support confidential - it has gone to those who already have the most.
This winter I hope the government is more prepared, but it does not seem so. Companies and households want to know: What will happen next winter? How will the government ensure that there is support in place if we get such high electricity prices again?
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Mr. Speaker! There were several accusations here that I recoiled quite a bit at. One was that I was supposed to have made myself inaccessible. I believe few experience that I have had a low media presence since I became part of Ulf Kristersson's government. I have tried to attend as many interviews as possible, come to the EU Committee and preparatory committees and, of course, also be available for accountability hearings, repeatedly since October.
We have also handled an EU presidency, which has sometimes, as today, resulted in us handling several interpellations debates at one and the same time. Sometimes times have also been offered for interpellations debates that have not suited the member concerned. One must have respect for that, and then one has to puzzle things together a little bit.
For me, however, it is a matter of honor: If one has asked for responsibility, one is also available to account for how one manages that responsibility. That is what I have tried to do to the greatest extent possible.
I have not had any comments on the presence of the Committee on Taxation at the Committee on Enterprise. I hope that sufficiently good answers have been given here to the questions in the interpellation that the member was seeking.
Niklas Karlsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! It is truly clear what different realities we are living in. I believe we are few who share the view that the Minister has been very accessible in precisely this issue. I only raised a few examples, but there are many more of how the Minister throughout the entire process has kept away from the media and has not participated in meetings in the Riksdag in the way that I think one should do.
But since the Minister now says that it is a matter of honor to be available, I take the Minister at his word and look forward to the Minister also saying yes the next time the Committee on Taxation invites him. I am pleased about that and look forward to discussions on other issues ahead.
Let me also say something about this specific matter, how it has been handled and what we have to work with moving forward. What the government did in substance was to divide the matter into a procedure and a decree, which meant that what the Riksdag was to handle were procedural issues while the decree was to be handled by the government. Here, one receives stinging criticism from the Council on Legislation, which says that one breaks the traditional norm hierarchy that exists in Sweden and the Swedish legal system. This means in practice, as the Council on Legislation writes in its response to the referral, that what the Riksdag started from when it made its decision to adopt a bill can later be changed by the government.
It is naturally completely unreasonable that we have an order where the legislative assembly enacts laws and where the government can then choose to interpret them in a different way and change them contrary to the Riksdag's intentions. It creates problems in the application of the law, and this is what the Council on Legislation highlights in its criticism.
What is perhaps still most serious in this context, or at least no less serious, is that this creates further complications. The companies affected by the electricity support are currently operating based on a principle where one breaks what is called the "mispayment principle." If a support has been received and it turns out that the person who paid out the support is the one who made the mistake, the recipient of the support may not need to take responsibility for this. The Council on Legislation states in its referral response to the government that this is a concern. Therefore, one should not do this, but rather should follow this principle.
If support has been received through incorrect certification, it is naturally fully reasonable that the person who received it on incorrect grounds is liable for repayment. But with the current arrangement, it can be the case that the Swedish Tax Agency makes an error, pays out the support, notes that it was not correct, and then must demand the money back.
Companies that now receive electricity support may want to use it to invest for the future, to earn their daily bread, and to maintain operations in the crises one is currently experiencing. But this means that if it turns out that Skatteverket has made a mistake, one must pay back that money, even though one received it in good faith and made investments for the future.
The uncertainty that companies are now living with is completely unreasonable, Mr. Speaker. It is unreasonable, not least because it violates a principle that we have previously stated is very important, namely that it is not the one who receives the support who should become liable for repayment if they have not committed an error themselves.
The government needs to bring clarity to this uncertainty, and those concerns need to be removed. One might even need to return to the Swedish Riksdag so that we can rectify it and so that it can be applied in a way that is reasonable.
Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)
Mr. Speaker! I noted that the Minister had approximately two and a half minutes left on her previous speech and could have answered what the plans look like for electricity support for next year. She is given another chance.
With this government, I believe that the Swedish people can expect quite high electricity prices for the foreseeable future. There does not seem to be any plan, other than that the government is planning for more nuclear power. But I repeat: If electricity prices are to go down, electricity production needs to increase here and now. It cannot be done with new nuclear power. It must be from other types of power.
We Social Democrats have presented a proposal for an energy policy goal that would mean increased electricity production until 2030, a total of 60 terawatt-hours. But the chosen government chose not to follow it. It is unfortunate for households and companies, but also for those industries that are now reviewing where they should place their investments.
As I pointed out in the previous post, the government has not presented any proposal for how they will ensure that Swedish households are not as vulnerable as they have been during the last two winters. I still want to be informed about how electricity production is to be increased, particularly in southern Sweden, but also about how the electricity subsidy will be designed and from where the government will take the money now that the possibility of returning bottleneck revenues no longer exists.
Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats have been an active and constructive opposition that has wanted to find broad agreements and solutions to the crises we see today. Earlier this year, we presented a proposal on folkhemsel, which is a new model to provide lower prices by having the state sign long-term contracts at low electricity prices. They are auctioned out to the electricity producer who wants to be paid the least and who then wins the auction. It could result in electricity prices that are up to 60 percent lower here and now.
How does the government view our proposal on folkhemsel? Can the government imagine introducing such a measure to support households and companies?
Right now, we are getting excuse after excuse instead of press conference after press conference regarding what the Swedish people can expect next winter. But I would like to have answers to those questions, Mr. Speaker.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Mr. Speaker! When it comes to process and accessibility, I want to emphasize that I mean what I say. It is a matter of honor to be available to the greatest extent possible. I appreciate Niklas Karlsson's words that it is respected.
I also want to emphasize that it also depends somewhat on physical availability. In the same way, some interpellants have not had the opportunity to debate here. Some of the questions on today's agenda, I had the opportunity to set aside time for on one, two, and three previous occasions. But then it was not possible for the interpellant to be present. That must be respected. I will not make accusations about it being a waste of time and other things. I assume that the instrument that exists is respected.
I have in no way refused the Committee on Taxation to also be present at the Committee on Enterprise. I think one can be pragmatic there. But the Committee on Taxation was not the preparing committee in the matter. That was at least what reached me; in the end, it was concluded that it was not needed, and the relevant information could be transferred between the party groups.
Before the energy talks we are to have this autumn, I have, for example, as recently as today, met with Fredrik Olovsson from the Socialdemokraterna from the Committee on Industry to discuss the formats. Where is there interest in the Riksdag to be able to receive relevant information but also to exert influence? What should the energy bill look like so that we can cooperate in processes between the Riksdag and the government?
Regarding incorrect payments, it has been commented on in several instances that some of those who received unusually high electricity support in the round intended for households appeared to be recipients who would nevertheless receive the corporate support.
If there are question marks regarding what is now being paid out to the companies, the government will, of course, need to return to that. Skatteverket is, as stated, the responsible authority. If we need to follow up on it further, in case there is uncertainty and risk of a norm-breaking repayment obligation, we will gladly return to the issue. We gratefully accept the points regarding any uncertainties that Skatteverket, as the responsible authority, has not already been able to resolve.
There is much that could be said linked to the energy issues. I am trying to answer primarily what is the subject of the interpellation. That is the reason why I may not give Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro as many answers to his questions. But I still want to mention a few things.
I do not agree that we are only talking about nuclear power. Yesterday, there was a discussion here in the chamber about 100 percent fossil-free. It is a goal that the Social Democrats chose not to stand behind.
I would like to see 60 terawatt-hours by 2030. But a goal of more power production without a clear how will be a shot in the air. I am happy to sit down and discuss. That is what I wish to do with the Riksdag in the autumn. Those conversations shall influence the energy bill, which will then come to the Riksdag. We are to discuss how we achieve 60 terawatt-hours. Parts of the industry have pointed out that it must be 70 terawatt-hours by 2030.
We need to have a realistic plan on how. I think action is more important than words. We delivered two decisions on offshore wind power in eight months. That is more than one decision in eight years.
Niklas Karlsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! I want to assert that the Minister is mistaken. The Committee on Taxation must nevertheless be considered a preparing committee in the matter, together with the Committee on Enterprise. The reason is that the matter is divided into a procedural issue and a regulation. This means that the Riksdag's opportunity to submit motions disappears. The matter lies entirely with the Government when it concerns issues that the Riksdag otherwise reasonably should need to take a position on. This concerns, for example, the payment of damages or the view on secrecy and publicity.
Since it is now being done in this order and thereby violates Swedish law, I think there should be a certain degree of humility on the part of the government. One should say: It is clear that we are going to come and answer the questions, because we are now applying a principle inverted, that is, upside down. We are breaking the order that has existed until now. It should also be a matter of honor.
Mr. Speaker! I am not asking the Minister to perform magic in any way. I understand that the calendar is full. But respect for the Riksdag is important. I was first given a time on May 29 for this debate. I wanted to reason about whether we could hold it the same week but on a different date. When that discussion was concluded, the slot times were full on May 29. It was therefore not I who declined. I only wanted to reason, and after that, the calendar was full.
Mr. Speaker! It is noted that it is a matter of honor. It has been said on a couple of occasions. I take this with me and look forward to continued discussions. When the questions come from the Committee on Taxation, I truly hope that the Minister will say yes.
In conclusion - the questions have been discussed. What lies before us now is also the future. What will the electricity support look like going forward? Now it is summer. We are going to celebrate Midsummer. There will be sun and swimming for a couple of weeks. But soon the Scanian and Swedish winter will return. Then it will be cold and dark. Then we will need energy.
What does the future look like for Swedish households and Swedish companies when the darkness returns? The government must soon deliver answers to that question.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I follow Niklas Karlsson's wish, look up towards the winter, and want to begin by saying in this chamber that during the spring and at the latest Council of Ministers meeting with the energy ministers on Monday in Luxembourg - the last during the Swedish presidency - an important part of the discussion was again how the preparedness looks for next winter.
It should be pointed out that we assume winter is toughest for many, for obvious reasons, but we know that summer also involves many strains. Last summer, several parts of our country had exceptionally high electricity prices which were suddenly noticed in a time when one is used to having very low electricity bills.
The harsh message is that the expected capacity charges will be significantly lower for the current year, which means that even if one were to replicate the exact same electricity support model, it will not be possible to obtain as much in support. Furthermore, we have just received notice from the EU that the capacity charges will not be able to be used in the same way, but it is not ruled out that they could change their mind on that issue.
A support model that implies that those who have paid in a lot also get a lot back also means that it is difficult to make adjustments based on how tough one has it, i.e., based on income, and to do more of a means test. It is something that I think would be good for the Riksdag to look at and that the government is absolutely looking at. How can one meet more in that issue so that the most vulnerable get the most? As a conservative, I naturally think that it is a much more attractive model to look at a general reduction of the energy tax, which also hits and drives much else, but that will be a question for the budget process this autumn.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.