Response to interpellation 2023/24:201 on electricity shortages due to the Norrland initiatives

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Elsa Widding has asked me four questions. Those watching online this Monday lunchtime will see us in two rounds with two heavy interpellations. We begin here with the first.

The first question is how I view the issue regarding who prioritizes the electricity available in society, i.e., who should receive the electricity and where this is decided. Furthermore, the question is how I and the government intend to handle the prioritization of electricity for industries and households when electricity becomes a scarce commodity. Specifically, Elsa Widding has asked me whether individual power companies such as Vattenfall should have that mandate.

Elsa Widding's second question is whether I can imagine taking the initiative to establish a state function, for example within the Swedish Energy Agency, which is tasked with ensuring electricity to prioritized areas in society.

As a third question, Elsa Widding has asked me how I and the government intend to act if it is now estimated that electricity equivalent to ten nuclear power plants will be lacking already in a few years, when there will hardly be a possibility to build nuclear power on such a short period and wind power will not be possible to produce on such a scale.

Finally, Elsa Widding asks, with reference to the fact that the CEO of the mining company LKAB has expressed that "it must work", what measures I intend to take to ensure that there is enough electricity.

There is a great need to expand the power system. Extensive electrification is crucial to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045. Many of the power system's challenges are highlighted in northern Sweden, where several parallel and extensive industrial investments are dependent on fossil-free energy and new large power withdrawals from the electricity grids.

Svenska kraftnät's forecast in the power balance report that Elsa Widding refers to – I appreciate it when people have read such things – is that if large industrial investments are realized according to current plans, electricity consumption would increase from approximately 143 terawatt-hours today to 187 terawatt-hours in 2027. This would not correspond to ten new nuclear power plants, but it is a very large increase. The Government has therefore taken a number of measures to ensure that electrification can be enabled while the security of supply in the electricity system can be maintained.

When it comes to access to electricity, it is important to distinguish between agreements on purchasing electricity from a specific company, how new consumption is connected to the electricity grid, and how users can be disconnected from the electricity grid in an acute shortage situation.

An agreement to purchase electricity, for example between an industry and an electricity supplier, does not affect how facilities are connected to or disconnected from the power grid, either in normal operation or in a shortage situation. The example that Elsa Widding mentions, that H2 Green Steel is to have agreed with Vattenfall regarding electricity deliveries, does not therefore mean that H2 Green Steel is prioritized to be connected to the power grid or that they are guaranteed electricity in a shortage situation.

The connection to the power grid is instead, as Elsa Widding states, normally carried out according to the "first come, first served" principle, both in the regional grids and in the transmission grid that Svenska kraftnät is responsible for. It is the responsibility of Svenska kraftnät and regional grid owners to ensure that the connection of new customers does not affect the operational security of the existing system in a way that contravenes Swedish and European legislation.

In the event of an acute power shortage, there is a possibility for Svenska kraftnät to order that consumption be disconnected. This is a tool to protect the power system and minimize the impact on society. If that tool is used, society-critical electricity users shall be prioritized to the extent possible. Previously, the risk of power shortage has been small. Ahead of last winter, however, Svenska kraftnät stated that there was a real risk of disconnection in southern Sweden, which demonstrates the system's vulnerability.

In order to be able to connect new large consumers, achieve the climate goals and maintain Sweden's competitiveness, the electricity system needs to be expanded. To clarify the direction for the energy policy and the development of the energy system, the government intends to present an energy policy direction bill which includes exactly one planning goal and one security of supply goal for the electricity system. This work will, in turn, require several tools. The government is also working purposefully with the tools concerning, for example, the streamlining of the connection processes, a developed electricity market, regulatory oversight, energy planning at local and regional levels, as well as a roadmap for new nuclear power.

Of course, one can say that it must be possible to produce the electricity that is needed, but it is not a pious hope, at least not from the government's side. It is one of this government's primary priorities to ensure that it happens. Sweden's competitiveness and welfare are built on access to fossil-free energy at competitive prices. That is what we must safeguard.

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

Elsa Widding (-)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for a good and difficult job! It is difficult but actually good in many respects.

Extensive electrification is crucial to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045, says the minister. My question then is whether the minister has considered how crucial it actually is to reach net-zero by 2045. How bad will it be if we simply state that it is not possible and if we instead reduce emissions in line with the rest of the world globally?

This is easy to calculate if one uses the IPCC's data and analysis. If we in Sweden go down to zero, the temperature impact at the end of the century will be approximately two thousandths of a degree, where the steel projects account for approximately 10 percent, i.e., two ten-thousandths of a degree. The question then is what this reduction is going to cost.

How much of welfare and tax revenue will have to be lost for us to affect the global temperature by two thousandths of a degree by the end of the century? That is what this urgent electrification actually is about and aims for.

It is of course absolutely nothing wrong with carrying out a comprehensive electrification, but it must occur at a pace that does not jeopardize the welfare. And it cannot occur until the electricity is available. Only then can one set such adventurous goals.

My question to the Minister is not about in what order users in an acute shortage situation may be disconnected from the grid, but the question is about how investments are prioritized when there is a shortage of capacity. Who shall be granted capacity to be connected to the grid, and who shall not?

There are a number of consumption applications at Svenska kraftnät today - totaling about 20,500 megawatts until 2033. Or most of it is until 2033; I believe it is 17,800 megawatts. The power consumption during the peak load hour in Sweden last year was just under 24,000 megawatts, so this is very much.

In area 1, there are applications for 12,500 megawatts. In area 2, there are 3,700. In area 3, where Stockholm is located, there are 4,300. And in area 4, there is nothing – zero, that is. It looks like the companies in the south have given up, and if that is true, it is obviously a major catastrophe for the willingness to invest. In the north, however, there is no limit to what one expects the state to be able to manage.

If we are to manage the transition and electrification at the pace that the industry plans for, an annual production supplement equivalent to the electricity consumption in Stockholm will be needed from now until 2045 to cover upcoming consumption increases as well as to replace existing production that is reaching the end of its lifespan. This is what Daniel Gustafsson, head of department for power systems, says. It is therefore a production supplement equivalent to the electricity consumption in Stockholm every year until 2045.

If investments in new production do not pick up pace, northern Sweden will go from a surplus area regarding electricity to a deficit area. And for southern Sweden, which is normally a deficit area, the situation will become even worse. There will therefore be no new investments, no new tax revenues.

The government has taken a number of measures to enable electrification while simultaneously maintaining the operational security of the electricity system, says the minister. One can then look at what is required to complete these projects in the north. Between the years 2000 and 2020, Svenska kraftnät built 60 miles of transmission network. Over the same number of years ahead, Svenska kraftnät is expected to build 700 miles of transmission network. This corresponds to a construction rate of one kilometer per day and at least 30,000 high poles and four power line corridors from Treriksröset to Smygehuk. It will not work. Must someone not pull the handbrake on electrification, and must one not take it a bit slower? What does the impact assessment look like for this?

We are heading towards a situation with even greater capacity problems than we already have.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is exciting to meet a person in an interpellation debate who is knowledgeable about the issues and also very engaged in the issues. I will try to clarify some of the follow-up questions, for they are many.

I will begin with the question regarding connection to the electricity grid, Mr. Speaker. It is Svenska kraftnät that decides on new connections to the national grid, and the grid owner decides on connection to the respective regional grid. As a starting point, a new electricity installation that produces or uses electricity has the right to be connected to the electricity grid, but if capacity is lacking, it can take time.

Svenska kraftnät and the regional grid owners are responsible for the stability of their networks. And the connection of new facilities must not be carried out if it does not fall within the operational safety limits. I touched upon this in my original response, but I want to emphasize it.

Today, there are few provisions regarding information sharing between different actors concerning applications for new connections to the electricity grids. This means, among other things, that Svenska kraftnät today has rather poor knowledge of larger connections planned in electricity grids other than their own. It is partly for this reason that the government has given a mandate regarding requirements for information sharing and streamlining of the process.

Furthermore, the government decided on June 19 this year on two assignments to Svenska kraftnät and to Energimarknadsinspektionen, which aim to streamline the process for new connections to the electricity grids and shorten the lead times.

The overall purpose of these assignments is for new companies to be able to establish themselves and for existing ones to be able to grow. In that case, access to connections to the electricity grid is needed, and they need to be sufficiently efficient.

The assignments also aim for the fact that the needs of companies shall be met better, which in the long run both strengthens Swedish competitiveness and gives us better conditions to reach our climate goals.

What Elsa Widding raises here, Mr. Speaker, is, among other things, the question: Is it even worth having a goal of net-zero by 2045? My answer is: Yes. And that is because I am counting backwards. If Sweden alone undertakes the climate transition journey, it is not worth that much, from my and the government's perspective. One could, for all, think: Then we have done right by ourselves. It depends on how one views the issues. But the great value is if we get more countries to make the same journey.

What is happening now during the climate summit in Dubai is that very many countries are suddenly looking at Sweden. They realize that it is a country that takes climate issues seriously but does not want to compromise on competitiveness, does not want to compromise on jobs for its inhabitants, does not want to let ordinary people foot the bill, and also does not want to sacrifice welfare. It is the realignment that this government is making of energy policy and thus also climate policy, and both we and the rest of the world see that nuclear power needs to be part of the mix.

In response to the question of whether this is possible, I would like to emphasize that the reason this is important is that it makes a difference if we can get more countries with us that can have a realistic journey towards net zero. Therefore, what Sweden does matters.

I want to emphasize that we have made this journey before. In the 70s and at the beginning of the 80s, Sweden built 14 nuclear power plants in a very short time, although one must be precise that two were built in Finland. It is that type of new construction that we are now grappling with.

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

Elsa Widding (-)

Mr. Speaker! My question is whether the Minister believes that it is possible to build these four power line corridors at the required pace, that is to say, one kilometer per day. It is that absurdity that I am trying to point out.

I naturally understand that one may want to lead as a country. Sweden has done an incredible amount, just as the minister says. When it comes to our electricity production, Sweden emits 20 grams of carbon dioxide per produced kilowatt-hour. The average in the EU is 300. Germany is at almost 400, and Poland is at 900 or something like that.

This is about the welfare and how we are going to manage this. As I pointed out, it is about Southern Sweden, and we are moving towards a situation where it becomes even worse.

Theoretically, I have nothing against electrification. But it must be feasible, because it will affect welfare. We are heading towards a situation with a shortage of electricity and even greater capacity problems than we already have, and wind power will, purely technically, not be able to solve the problem. Does it not really require a different prioritization than to grant 12,000 megawatts of new capacity in area 1?

When one looks at the figures and reads the reports from Svenska kraftnät, one gets the impression, and no one dares to say it straight out, that these investments are simply to be forgotten. It might be a bit ridiculous to say so, but isn't it more important to be able to bake bread in Southern Sweden and expand operations there than to feed venture capitalists with our tax money to no great benefit for the climate? That is also one of the points here.

It is clear that it is a very theoretical calculation. Even if we stop emitting carbon dioxide, it will of course not affect the temperature for a long time. I will not go into why that is, but purely theoretically, it will be a very, very small reduction. If one multiplies many countries that all reduce their emissions by two thousandths of a degree, there is a reason why there won't be any major temperature difference.

In some way we must think about Sweden's population, and it is truly heading in the wrong direction. Sweden has the two worst electricity areas in all of Europe, SE3 and SE4. We are, compared to today, heading towards a radically changed power system where trade flows across snitt 1 will go north. With a high expansion of offshore wind power along Sweden's southern coast, the trade flow across snitt 3 and 4 will also go north during large parts of the year. This is a catastrophe for southern Sweden.

Speaking of the electricity-consuming green projects in the north, one could ask what you actually have. You have no electricity and no ore. You only have a bag of money that you have begged together from European taxpayers. Now you are even going to transport the ore across the Atlantic, so it won't even be fossil-free.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is always a bit exciting when one is about to debate and fundamentally stands quite far apart, for example, in the question of climate change or rather what has an effect on trying to slow down the warming of the earth and what significance it has that Sweden then does its part.

I think it has value and want to take that question seriously. Therefore, I want to turn to those who are listening to this broadcast now or afterwards and who ask themselves if they believe in climate change, and if they do, does it then matter what Sweden does?

I am not claiming that Elsa Widding says this, but I know that there are some who believe in climate change but who still wonder if anything can be done about them.

I would say this: Use the process of elimination! Is it a problem if Sweden has a lot of fossil-free base load? The answer is no. Today, our big problem is that we have a large lack of the same. Over the last ten years, we have pushed an equivalent of 10,000 megawatts of new power production into our electricity system. That corresponds, if converted, to approximately seven nuclear reactors.

The problem is only that all this power production has not been power production from new nuclear power but from weather-dependent, i.e., intermittent, power sources. This has made our system very fragile, while at the same time four reactors have been decommissioned.

When the question is raised as to whether it is not more important that one can bake bread in southern Sweden, the answer is that if we strengthen power production and carry out a substantial expansion of new fossil-free baseload power in the form of nuclear power, it is a win for southern Sweden, but it is also a win for northern Sweden.

We are also now in a situation where our power production is important for balancing out Norway and Finland. Should we have a surplus during certain periods, we also have the opportunity to export our power production. In a situation where Germany has chosen the completely opposite path compared to Sweden and shut down its nuclear power production, they have also started to vacuum up other sources for just fossil-free power production. Here, Sweden could have a major competitive advantage.

I am convinced that it is right to have such high climate goals. I mean that we have time and again shown that it is possible to reach net zero without sacrificing competitiveness, jobs, and a strong welfare for the citizens - to be there for the people.

Whether one believes it is feasible or not can be debated. But my point is that it is also possible to think backwards: to think that regardless of what I think and believe as Minister for Energy and Deputy Prime Minister, it will not be a problem if we significantly expand our power production – as long as we do it in a way that is operationally secure and with a clear security of supply, and so that we have enough power where and when it is needed.

If any of the projects that Elsa Widding puts a question mark on were to be approved, could we still have a major competitive advantage from such a massive expansion of power production? I think that is an argument worth taking to heart.

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

Elsa Widding (-)

Mr. Speaker! There are many things, and I just want to say that when it comes to the climate issue, we have the IPCC to refer to. There, we can be glad that it looks horribly much better today than it did a few years ago, now that we are following SSP2-4.5, a medium scenario. If China manages even a little better to reduce its emissions before the middle of the century, one will probably be even more positive at the next reporting occasion.

So it still looks quite good. We are moving from emitting somewhere around 40 gigatons of carbon dioxide per year, and if we follow this scenario, we look to be coming down to 10. That is very, very good. We will then be at an emission level of approximately 600 ppm and not at 1,200, as was thought a number of years ago and which was quite illogical.

What I would like to advocate for is a bridging policy until we have enough new fossil-free electricity production. This could, for example, be to restart Stenungsund, which I will speak a little about in the next interpellation.

It is very important to understand that one does not need to be so terribly afraid of fossil power. Monday evening last week, Sweden net imported 1,371 megawatts of electricity from the neighboring countries Poland and Germany. That is, 610 megawatts came from Poland, which corresponds to a Barsebäck reactor. Around noon on Monday, the carbon intensity from Poland's energy mix was 930 grams of carbon dioxide equivalents. That means almost pure coal power. If Sweden had burned its own oil instead, there would have been much lower emissions.

It is also about being a bit smart and not being so damn afraid of Miljöpartiet and Socialdemokraterna. One must dare to calculate and point out what emits and what does not emit. Then we would fare much better.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I will keep this brief because we will have reason to discuss more aspects of these issues in just a moment.

I believe that Elsa Widding and I have the opportunity to agree that an irresponsible policy has been pursued for a long time, and that has made Sweden in a much more vulnerable position now. I can perhaps create some security by saying that the government is not so "terribly afraid" of Miljöpartiet. We are happy to cooperate broadly where we can agree, but it should be the laws of physics that stand at the center, not ideological deadlocks around specific types of power or wishing for things to happen. I still appreciate questions that concern the realism of the plans and how they are to be concretized.

Sweden has a journey to make, and I do not mince words about that. That is why we have a very active dialogue with all our authorities and further concretize their mandates to ensure that we achieve a higher degree of realism in the great journey that we need to make to once again show that Sweden can undertake another new construction journey. In this way, we can show that we can reconcile responsibility for our climate and our environment with more jobs and a stronger welfare. I look forward to discussing these issues further.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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