Response to interpellation 2022/23:90 on the environmental permits for hydropower
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns a twelve-month pause in the reassessment of environmental permits for hydropower. L argues that the pause is necessary to analyze effects on the electricity system and ensure security of supply in an energy crisis 1 2. L emphasizes that hydropower is crucial for balancing and restoring the electricity system 2 and that the pause is a trade-off where environmental consequences are accepted to protect the power system 3. L believes that hydropower owners care about the environment 4 and that the pause is a trade-off between different interests 4. S argues that hydropower is the backbone of the electricity system and that modern environmental permits are required for sustainability. S argues that the pause risks becoming a delay 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 what I intend to do concretely to pause the reassessment of the environmental permits for hydropower, what new decision-making basis I believe should be prepared to justify a pause of the reassessment, and what I assess Sweden risks in terms of infringement fees from the EU if a pause is made that causes us to miss the schedule, and whether I intend to take any measures to reduce the risk of such a fee.
On 12 January, the government decided on an amendment to the annex to the ordinance (1998:1388) on water activities, which means that the time by which an application for review for modern environmental conditions must be submitted at the latest will be moved forward by one year for all review groups where the time to submit an application has not yet passed. The amendment to the ordinance enters into force on 30 January 2023.
Sweden's climate and environmental policy must be ambitious, and Swedish competitiveness must be protected. To achieve this, we need to ensure not only that hydropower plants and dams are environmentally adapted, but also that it happens in such a way that the impact on the power system is as small as possible in relation to the environmental benefit.
Madam Speaker! Even though the rule changes regarding the environmental adaptation of hydropower have not been in force for more than four years, much has changed during that very time. Sweden is in an energy crisis with high electricity prices at the same time as an increased electricity production is required to meet society's rapid electrification and climate transition. Security of supply also needs to be strengthened. Additional intermittent electricity production will be added to the electricity system, and in the coming years, variations in production will largely result in an increased need for balancing resources.
Against the background of the changed situation in the electricity market and the need to secure a robust energy system capable of responding quickly to the changed needs, the effects of the re-evaluations carried out so far need to be mapped, and the need for changes to the current system for testing modern environmental conditions is being reviewed. The twelve-month pause of the re-evaluation provides time for such analysis and review, as well as for the implementation of the changes to the system that the analysis could potentially lead to. It is too early today to say exactly which changes would be relevant.
The hydropower plants and dams that mean Sweden is not meeting the requirements resulting from the Water Framework Directive need to be addressed. Pausing the assessments according to the national plan can therefore pose a problem in relation to Sweden's EU law obligations to the extent that an environmental adaptation will not be achieved in any other way. It is therefore very important for us that the pause does not last longer than necessary.
Joakim Järrebring (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.
Hydropower is a fantastic resource. It is renewable and dispatchable and is therefore also the backbone of Sweden's energy system. But hydropower affects both flora and fauna very negatively. The purpose of the review of hydropower is to ensure that it has modern environmental permits. In this way, we secure Swedish hydropower as a sustainable activity in what is commonly referred to as the EU taxonomy. The purpose of the taxonomy is to, within the framework of the European Green Deal, steer capital flows towards sustainable investments.
What then is a sustainable activity? According to the EU taxonomy, the following criteria must be met for an activity to be considered sustainable: The activity must contribute substantially to at least one of the six environmental objectives defined by the taxonomy. The activity must not cause significant harm to any of the other five environmental objectives. The activity must also meet minimum safeguard requirements that set standards for companies' social sustainability. This applies, for example, to rights in the workplace.
The environmental adaptation of our water activities is necessary so that plants and animals in our flowing waters are not harmed and killed at the power plants. The measures are crucial for modern environmental permits. Modern environmental permits are, in turn, crucial for living up to the Water Framework Directive, which the Minister was just mentioning, which in itself is a prerequisite for the activity to be counted as sustainable within the taxonomy.
No pope in the world can get around these facts. All our hydropower needs modern environmental permits, and that is the entire purpose of the national plan for the reassessment of water activities.
I and the Social Democrats are very concerned about all hydropower in Sweden. We are also convinced that it is possible to reconcile both large-scale and small-scale hydropower with modern environmental permits.
I am not saying that it is necessarily wrong to pause the trials, but the government must be very clear about what additional decision-making basis the water authorities shall use. Otherwise, the pause will mean nothing other than a delay.
It may be that mapping and analysis will be required, but how and when will the mapping and analysis take place? Does the Minister intend to appoint an inquiry? Is it an agency that is to be given the assignment? Is it to take place at the Government Offices? What does the government's plan for this look like?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! As I explained in my response to the interpellation, we need, among other things, to analyze and assess the effects of the reviews carried out so far and review the need for changes to our current system for the assessment of modern environmental conditions.
It is a work that is already ongoing. It is therefore too early today to say exactly what it is about. What I can account for is that the work is currently ongoing within the Government Offices to, among other things, analyze and assess the effects of the re-evaluations carried out so far and review the need for changes to the current system.
The assessment is that twelve months are required to calmly and with wise judgments be able to analyze the situation and carry out the changes that may become necessary. It is a clearly time-limited pause of twelve months.
It is exactly as Joakim Järrebring points out that hydropower is truly the fossil-free backbone of the Swedish electricity system. It secures our electricity supply both when the sun shines and when the wind blows, and when we are in the absolutely toughest situations for our electricity system, namely when Sweden is cold.
For Sweden and for the entire Nordic region, hydropower contributes a cost-effective and fossil-free balancing through its ability to store water in dams. Thanks to hydropower's characteristics of being able to start, stabilize, and balance the electricity system, it contributes, in addition to a balancing of the electricity system, to restoring our electricity system if the worst imaginable were to happen, namely that Sweden has gone black.
The testing of the power plants needs to proceed. We need to analyze the situation in order to be able to carry out the changes that may become necessary. We need to find out what our electricity system can handle and then adapt the system for testing of modern environmental conditions so that we achieve as much environmental benefit as possible - there we are in complete agreement - without risking our electricity supply.
The energy policy decisions over the last eight years have focused on completely different aspects than ensuring that our electricity supply functions. The government is changing that. It has gone so far that we are in a situation where we cannot assume that our energy supply functions. We consider that to be very serious.
Our electricity system is in a completely different position than it was a few years ago when the plans for the review were drawn up. Even small weakenings of the electricity system in this situation can have serious consequences for Sweden's electricity supply.
Madam Speaker! That is why, before our reconsideration, we need a proper analysis of what our electricity system can handle. The pause is simply needed to allow time for the analysis and review required regarding how our system may need to be changed.
Joakim Järrebring (S)
Madam Speaker! I want us to continue to deliberate a bit regarding the environmental permits. Already today, the regulatory framework takes as a starting point the measures that need to be made so that hydropower can continue within the framework of what is a sustainable operation. They will not be changed by the assessment that small-scale hydropower is an important contribution to the electricity system in Sweden.
The Water Framework Directive lies there as a foundation. It is necessary to comply with the Water Framework Directive in order for us to fit within the taxonomy. It can absolutely be the case that part of the decision-making basis—and that was something I also touched upon in my previous speech—can be supplemented. The water authorities shall take into account things that they do not have the possibility to take into account today because there is not a sufficiently good basis.
If it is the government's ambition with the pause to review how additional decision-making bases can be provided for the water authorities in their assessment, we Social Democrats will view this very positively. But right now, I am afraid that the pause will lead to nothing other than a delay of the reassessment of the environmental permits.
It has an opportunity cost. With the pause, it is currently the environment that bears the cost. Measures that would have needed to be taken to improve the environment in Sweden are being delayed. Many of the power producers who have had a plan to adhere to have hired consultants to help with the reassessments. Suddenly, the timeline is shifted by one year.
It means that one needs to have the consultant procured for a year longer than intended or that one must cancel that consultant's assignment and then hire a new consultant. There are many negative effects with the pause. Therefore, I and the Socialdemokraterna are keen that we manage the pause in a very wise way.
The Minister explains that work is already underway within the Government Offices. I understood it as that the mapping and analysis will take place within the Government Offices. I hope that the government then has an ongoing dialogue with the relevant committees regarding that work.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! The pause is a balance between several interests. It is true that it has consequences that we pause the review for twelve months. These are consequences that affect the environment. It affects the fish that cannot obtain an improved permit and are affected by the possible harmful effects of the hydropower turbines. There is much to take into account here.
It is important to point out that those who provide the hydropower, as far as I have understood it, in any case are not upset by the pause. Rather, they are happy that the government realized that the tests need to be carried out in a wiser way so as not to affect their important operations.
Their activities are now even more important than when the review was initiated. It is a fact. We have a war raging in our immediate vicinity. It affects the entire EU's energy supply. Sweden has an energy crisis, partly as a result of our electricity system being in a completely different situation.
It is the consequences of the policy that has been pursued over the last eight years. There, the focus has not been on ensuring that the electricity supply functions. It is the consequences of that which we, from the government's side, now need to handle. It is unfortunate.
Imagine if one had known that. I believe that the parties that have influenced our electricity system to be as affected as it is now and as weak as it is now are parties that are very concerned about environmental policy. They are parties that are very concerned about our fish having it well. But the consequence of their actions became to Sweden's disadvantage.
Basically, it is about the fact that we are in a completely different situation than a few years ago when the plans for the review were drawn up. I also want to mention that as a consequence of that, we have to work very hard on other fronts for our ecological environment.
We are very keen on protecting our environment in various ways. There is policy that is presented, among other things, regarding wetland initiatives. There are also over 250 million kronor in the budget for precisely the protection of seas and waters. It is about how we can design different methods to prevent the ongoing extinction of species that are occurring.
We have a very important issue to handle regarding biodiversity. We must find wise ways forward. It states, among other things, in the Tidö Agreement that we shall utilize fish migration routes to facilitate for hydropower to operate sustainably. I believe that is an important step regarding that aspect.
In order to design the policy we pursue in this area in the wisest way possible, it is obviously important that we share all the knowledge we possess. It is about designing the policy in the wisest way so that it becomes stably designed and that there are wise decisions that as many as possible can stand behind.
I therefore look forward to maintaining an ongoing dialogue with all interested parties, also regarding this important work.
Joakim Järrebring (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.
I would still like to raise a warning finger. I believe that many of those who are owners of small-scale hydropower have somewhat too high expectations of what the pause will lead to, given that they have often been critical of the measures that need to be taken. It is about the measures that are required to obtain a modern environmental permit, which complies with the Water Framework Directive and which therefore makes hydropower a sustainable activity within the EU taxonomy.
I hope that the government has not made promises or created expectations that it then cannot fulfill. In that case, the pause has once again only led to a delay.
I understand that the Minister and other ministers in the government repeatedly say the same thing, namely that one should have an ambitious environmental and climate policy. But so far, it is only rhetoric. The policy that has been presented unfortunately leads, in any case just now, in completely the wrong direction. The government itself states this in its budget. I look forward to it not just being rhetoric going forward, but that the government also returns with policy that is truly ambitious.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Let me conclude this debate by pointing out that I have an impression that even those who own hydropower in Sweden are concerned about the environment in our seas and waters. I do not believe there would be any lack of will to not carry out improvements as long as they do not affect their operations in an all-too powerful way or are not carried out in the very best way.
It is precisely for that reason we need to utilize the pause required due to the situation in our energy system to best determine how we can improve the tests that take place. It is not only in the water power owners' interest, but also in our interest, that the tests being conducted are carried out in the very best way.
I am also aware that the work that needs to precede the trial itself is in full swing. Joakim Järrebring exemplified this by stating that consultants have been procured. Our county administrative boards have also hired people who will work on these issues. We are well aware of all parts of the government's decision. This pause is a balance between all these interests, and we believe that the consequences for the energy supply would have been greater than the consequences of a 12-month pause.
I hope that the government, with its pause for the sake of energy and the second-largest climate and environmental budget presented by a government in a long time, can assure both owners of hydropower and the Swedish people that we are pursuing an ambitious and effective climate and environmental policy.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.