Response to interpellation 2023/24:30 on the National Audit Office's report on previous energy policy
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 government is working to shift energy policy towards 100 percent fossil-free electricity production by 2040 1. KD emphasizes that physics must govern energy policy and that base load from hydro and nuclear power is necessary for security of supply 2. KD wants to remove legal obstacles for new nuclear power to combine green transition with economic growth 3. KD believes that nuclear power makes Sweden richer, lowers costs, and creates growth 4. SD criticizes the previous energy policy for being ideologically driven 5. SD argues that political decisions have prevented new investments in nuclear power and that the system benefit from hydro and nuclear power must be compensated 5 6.
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)
Madam Speaker! Tobias Andersson has asked me what lessons the government and I draw from the Riksrevisionen's report State's measures for the development of the electricity system and whether I intend to act to rectify the problems highlighted in the report.
I would like to apologize in advance both to the interpellor and to those sitting in the gallery and others who are listening, as this may become one of the most boring answers in living memory. But it will be a correct one. Then we shall see if we can still have a rewarding exchange regarding this.
This concerns a report from the Swedish National Audit Office. It may sound a bit dry, but it is an incredibly important issue. The Government received the audit report that Tobias Andersson refers to in his interpellation on September 19. What the National Audit Office has audited is whether the state actors have prepared and implemented measures with an impact on the electricity system so that the three energy policy pillars can be reconciled in an effective manner.
The process for handling the Swedish National Audit Office's audit reports follows a very clear template. In a communication to the Riksdag, the Government shall report which measures the Government has taken or intends to take in light of the audit report. Such a communication shall be submitted to the Riksdag within four months from the time the report was received. The Government will therefore return to the Riksdag in light of the Swedish National Audit Office's audit of the state's measures for the development of the electricity system.
The Riksdag decided before the summer on the new energy policy goal of 100 percent fossil-free electricity production by 2040. The Government, based on the Government's political priorities and in accordance with this goal, has initiated the work to restructure the energy policy.
Tobias Andersson (SD)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer which she considers boring.
The Sweden Democrats have long criticized the pursued energy policy. We have accused it of being ideologically driven and completely lacking any grounding in reality. We have criticized the decisions which, in our view, have caused us to be in a situation today where Sweden's energy system has major problems because we do not have enough energy, capacity, or power grids.
This is what the government base should try to rectify, but it can be stated that the situation today would have been significantly better if one had not chosen to shut down nuclear power plants prematurely. In recent years, this fact has been constantly debated. During the election campaign, the Social Democrats consistently claimed that their policy had absolutely not influenced the decommissioning of any nuclear reactors at all. I and the minister have long known that this is a lie, Madam Speaker. But now we have also received backing from the Swedish National Audit Office through their audit report titled Statens åtgärder för utveckling av elsystemet.
The report can be summarized as that the policy pursued was built on a complete lack of understanding of how the energy system works and that it was short-sighted and lacked consequence analysis. The report points out, among other things, some of the political decisions that practically made it impossible for nuclear power to compete on equal terms. Among the examples highlighted in the National Audit Office's report is the increase of the electricity tax. It describes that there was a complete lack of consequence analysis before the increase and that it, together with among other things other existing taxation and low electricity prices, contributed to the decommissioning of four nuclear reactors.
Madam Speaker! During the debate, I will return a bit more to the report, but first I want to say that it is obvious that the Social Democrats have let ideology, political maneuvering, and bargaining be more important than Sweden's best interests. For this, a heavy responsibility falls on Magdalena Andersson and the Social Democrats, who have more or less paid the Green Party for government power by allowing a fossil-free energy system, one of the world's most powerful, to be almost rendered useless.
The Sweden Democrats, on the other hand, have for a long time consistently criticized this direction of energy policy and warned of its consequences. Therefore, I am pleased to be, together with the minister, part of a government basis that is now almost performing a complete about-face in the area and ensuring that the laws of physics, instead of ideological blinkers, are allowed to be guiding for the energy system. For us, it is completely central to ensure a long-term, competitive, and reliable energy supply for both households and the business sector. In other words, more predictable electricity production is required, which means nuclear power, something we could have had to a greater extent today if certain political decisions had not been made.
Madam Speaker! I am fully aware that Ebba Busch cannot anticipate the communication that the government will issue in light of the audit report. My question to the Minister is instead whether the Minister believes that the Social Democrats will now acknowledge their responsibility for the decommissioning of nuclear power plants after the National Audit Office has established a political debt.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I want to underline again for those listening that we will return with a full account of both how we, from the current government's side, view the National Audit Office's report, and what measures we have already taken or will take.
I have had the opportunity to be active in national politics with a formal assignment for about ten years. During that time, I have debated energy issues on and off. Very many of the points that I myself have raised in the debate, I also find in the National Audit Office's report. With that perspective, it is still possible to get a certain indication of what will also appear in the government's response to the National Audit Office's report. There was nothing in the report that surprised me as Minister for Energy.
It is emphasized that the time must be over for complicated agreements that are not stringent but rather are about bridging other political differences of opinion and letting the energy system and the electricity system pay the price. It can sound nice when political settlements are reached. I myself as a citizen can think that it feels nice sometimes to hear politicians say: Now we are in agreement - we have entered a room here and are in agreement on this. But one is in agreement on something that fundamentally will be neither hacked nor ground down. The bottom line is that it simply becomes quite bad. It is also bad to be in agreement on something that is bad. It speaks for itself. Sometimes we have almost had an intrinsic value in that we must reach an agreement and that it is good.
If we are to look a bit ahead, that is what we are trying to look at: What does the electricity system need to guarantee a reasonable level of security of supply and a stable supply of electricity at a competitive price?
It concerns how we shall ensure that the next generation does not need to wonder about:
Will electricity come out of two holes in the wall?
Is it everywhere where it is needed and when it is needed?
That is what energy policy is about, really. Then one must move away from ideological deadlocks.
I am a warm advocate for spirited ideological debates on many policy areas. But when it comes to energy policy, it is actually physics that it is about. I love sun. I love wind. But none of that is base load. What is base load in Sweden? It is hydropower and nuclear power.
If we do not have enough of what are synchronous energy and power production sources, we also cannot just push forward with more solar power or more wind power. Then the system in Sweden will not work. Politics must out of energy policy, and physics must into energy policy. It is that realignment that we have begun to make.
I will answer Tobias Andersson's question about whether I believe there will be an acknowledgment of the obvious effect of the political decisions on the nuclear reactors. This concerns the four nuclear reactors that have nevertheless disappeared from the Swedish electricity system during the five years. My answer is no.
I can perhaps dwell on that at night, but not during the day. Then we must move forward. I believe there is a very large openness to navigate a bit less politically and a bit more physics-oriented forward broadly in Sweden today.
Tobias Andersson (SD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you again for the answer from the Minister!
It will be interesting to receive the communication in its full extent. If I am only to make one observation regarding the Swedish National Audit Office's audit report, I can state that the recommendations directed at the government are probably, at least according to my assessment, recommendations that the government already had with them before they entered the various departments.
It is about a knowledge and an understanding that has been requested and highlighted during the past years. One simply does not risk repeating the same mistakes that the National Audit Office argues that previous governments have made in the area.
Only one of the recommendations can be taken. It reads: Investigate fundamental questions regarding which power system benefits should be compensated so that equivalent economic incentives can be given to those actors who contribute with different system-supporting benefits.
It is something that, at least the Sweden Democrats have demanded for many years. We must ensure that the power production which by definition generates not only power but also a systemic benefit is compensated for that benefit. It is primarily the enabling it represents for other types of power.
This applies in particular to wind and solar which, thanks to hydropower and nuclear power, can be connected to our electricity grid. At the moment, rather an opposite situation prevails. For example, hydropower turbines are being worn out at the expense of wind power being connected to the electricity grid.
One has previously not only subsidized access to wind power but also allowed hydropower to bear part of the cost that it has entailed to add so much weather-dependent power production to our electricity grid. It is a fact we have that the Swedish National Audit Office now gives as a recommendation to the government.
Madam Speaker! We have until now in the debate perhaps primarily focused on how political decisions have led to a decommissioning of nuclear power plants. This specifically concerns the four that have been highlighted in the report. But political decisions have also, in addition to that, prevented, or at least strongly limited, new investments in nuclear power.
We can begin with the fact that the first formal government bill on this area was New Nuclear Power in Sweden - a first step. It does not aim to order new nuclear power tomorrow. No, that is not where we can begin. Since we have had governments that, purely legally with Swedish legislation, limited investments in nuclear power, we must begin by tearing down those obstacles by removing the limitations on ten reactors at three sites in Sweden. We must therefore begin by tearing down purely legal and technical obstacles for new nuclear power investments.
We can also note that when the Social Democratic government took office in 2014 and presented its budget, one could read on svt.se on October 1: "When the Social Democrats and the Green Party today presented their new energy agreement, Vattenfall's plans to be able to construct replacement plants in about ten years were thwarted."
Vattenfall thus had the ambition to review the conditions for building new nuclear power plants at the Ringhals site but chose to abandon those plans against the background of a political change of government. If that had not occurred, we could have connected both one and two nuclear reactors to our power grid during this year or perhaps next year and delivered both energy and power where it was needed most.
It cannot be us. That is where we stand today, Madam Speaker. The Minister and I are working on it. Probably it is just Ringhals that is the place where we see the first new reactor being put in place, which we now need to act on ten years after.
It is not enough that previous governments have decommissioned or acted in a way that has forced the decommissioning of nuclear power plants. They have also ensured that no new investments have taken place. I believe the minister is right that the Social Democrats will not acknowledge their responsibility for that.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! It is good to both look a little bit at what has happened during this year and also look a little bit forward.
We have, just as Tobias Andersson has underlined here, chosen to pave the way for new nuclear power by reviewing the rules that hinder the expansion. It is about the fact that there has been a limitation in Sweden regarding which sites one may build nuclear power on and for how many reactors, limited to ten reactors.
We often speak of the four nuclear reactors that have disappeared from the Swedish energy system. But in addition to that, we have Ringhals 5 and Ringhals 6, where the entire project was halted. It would have continued for another nine years if it had not been for the political climate that prevailed at the time.
Above all, we are now trying to establish an order that all good forces are needed. Sweden is today a world leader in green transition. We are a world leader in green transition, which does not mean that we are to go back to the Middle Ages or that people should lie down and die, stop consuming, stop being able to travel to other parts of the world, and stop being able to pave the way for new companies, economic growth, and more jobs.
We are world leaders in green transition, answering what is sometimes called in English as the million dollar question. Is it possible to combine green transition with economic growth, strong welfare, and decent jobs? The Swedish answer is yes. The reason we have been able to answer yes to this is that we have had relatively cheap and secure electricity supply, and we have had a lot of it.
It is based on having shown a little love, care, and understanding for how the electricity system works. I will repeat it again, with a fool's persistence. It is about pressing on a lot of intermittent power production. It is weather-dependent power production such as solar and wind. It comes and goes depending on the weather. So far, we have not managed to find a fantastic solution where one can save all the electricity that is produced when it blows a lot or when it shines a lot. Maybe it will come, like small ecosystems to be able to handle it. But it does not exist on a large scale to be able to handle a country like Sweden.
The power grid must be built so that it can be like an autobahn when it is blowing a lot and shining a lot. Then you must be able to push as much electricity as you want into the system. Otherwise, you cannot take advantage of it. But in between, when it is not there, it is exactly as Tobias Andersson underlines. Then the hydropower or the nuclear power must balance it out when it suddenly stops shining or stops blowing. That is what has made the whole thing so complicated.
What decision have we then reached here? Svenska kraftnät and Energimyndigheten have been tasked to increase the pace and intensify and strengthen the security of supply in the energy sector. It is precisely to address that the system is so unstable and comes and goes a bit as it pleases.
We have also decided on a reliability norm. It sounds very correct and is incredibly good and important. It describes how many hours per year it is socio-economically justified that the country's production and possible imports do not meet the entire expected demand for electricity. We must therefore get a handle on what it is that makes the system much less stable now, despite the fact that over the last ten years we have pushed in 10,000 megawatts – which corresponds to seven nuclear reactors – in new power production. It is because the nuclear power has disappeared.
How do we then ensure that we compensate for this? This, Madam Speaker, is some decisions that have already been made this year.
Tobias Andersson (SD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you again for the answer from the Minister! The proposals mentioned concern things that we stand behind. We also foresee how much more will happen, not least to ensure that the recommendations that the National Audit Office actually gives in retrospect to previous governments are complied with by this government, which has a different nuance and a different understanding of these issues.
During the course of the debate, we have been able to observe that neither I nor the Minister believes that the Social Democrats will now, in hindsight, stand up and admit their guilt for the decommissioning of the nuclear reactors, despite all available empirical evidence stating the responsibility the Social Democrats have had for this sequence of events having occurred. I do not believe it is likely that the Social Democrats will take responsibility, regardless of how much empirical evidence is presented for the public opinion to take part in.
The question that, on the other hand, perhaps keeps me awake – we did talk about such things earlier during the debate – is rather whether one from the Social Democrats' side has understood the consequences of the decisions one has made. Has one been aware of what this will entail, or has one simply not understood and grasped what systemic effects it will cause?
To be honest, Madam Speaker, I do not know what I think is worst. I do not know if I think it is worse if the Social Democrats could never foresee, predict, and grasp the implications of the decisions they made together with Miljöpartiet, or if one understood it and still cynically chose to continue on the path taken just to guarantee retaining government power with Miljöpartiet's support. I do not know which is worst – ignorance or cynical lust for power. But it is about one of these.
I would like to ask a question to the Minister during my final seconds of speaking time. Now, however, a shift is occurring from the Social Democrats. They are beginning to open up to some extent to at least have more than ten reactors - admittedly not at more than three locations, but a positive change is still occurring. The Social Democrats stand behind goals for fossil-free to some extent.
Do you judge that this is a credible shift from the Social Democrats?
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! The answer to the question is: I believe so. Sometimes there are tough headlines and tough conflicts in politics. That is part of democracy. But I can say that some of the best and most sensible people I know are Social Democrats. They are proud Social Democrats. Indeed, there are many of them whom I have had a dialogue with through the years, and I have even now.
I perceive that there is now a window in politics where certain political deadlocks that existed before no longer exist. It is a window and an opportunity that we really must take advantage of. There are many of us, regardless of political color, who unite in love for Sweden. We unite in the will and the drive and in the knowledge that regardless of which government will be allowed to cut those bonds, and regardless of whether it is blue or red municipal councils that locally will get to welcome new companies, new investments and new jobs to their towns, that is where we must go. We have no choice.
With that said, I also think that one should have a humility regarding the fact that it sometimes does not turn out well when one makes political decisions. I know already that there will be such decisions. When they are evaluated in a few years, people will say: We were headed towards A, but instead we ended up at B. Then one must be humble in the face of the fact that one needs to adjust the course.
I shall try to hold fast to this humility but still continue to welcome all good forces - all good forces in politics and all good forces regarding new power production.
I love nuclear power, because it will make Sweden richer, it will make it cheaper to be Swedish and it will pave the way for growth, for more jobs and for the opportunity to reach our climate goals. Nuclear power has done it before, and it can do it again. Now we shall ensure that it becomes a reality. Thank you for the interpellation!
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.