Response to interpellation 2023/24:311 on offshore wind power in Halland
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD welcomes all new electricity production and argues that offshore wind power has the potential to contribute to electrification. KD emphasizes that the party connecting to the power grid should bear the connection costs and argues that they have leveled the competitive conditions between onshore and offshore wind power. KD argues that offshore wind power has more full-load hours than onshore wind power and that the government is now shifting energy policy to contribute to the climate goals 1. C agrees on the need for expanded electricity supply and argues that offshore wind power needs to be implemented until potential new nuclear power 2. C criticizes that the government has changed the conditions so that wind power projects shall bear the connection costs 2. C argues that the government is not technology-neutral because they give nuclear power an economic fast track.
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! It is a pleasure to take the floor again to answer an interpellation from Christofer Bergenblock.
Christofer Bergenblock has asked me what the government and I intend to do to secure the necessary expansion of offshore wind power off the Halland coast and in other parts of the country. The member has also asked me if I intend to take any initiatives in accordance with the proposal to let wind power developers build grid connections and then sell them to Svenska kraftnät.
The Government welcomes all new electricity production that strengthens the electricity system and that can quickly contribute to the expansion of the electricity system. Wind power has the potential to assist with increased electricity production, which is needed to enable the electrification of society. The Government's starting point is that all types of production shall bear their own costs. The principle that the one who connects to the electricity grid shall bear the costs that the connection causes shall therefore be upheld even at sea.
The Government has taken a number of different measures to enable the green transition. This includes, among other things, measures to increase the conditions for expanding fossil-free electricity production in Sweden, including offshore wind power.
In addition to making decisions on permits in the cases raised by Christofer Bergenblock, Kattegatt Syd and Galene, the government has also granted Vattenfall permission to lay the underwater cables required to power the planned wind farm Kriegers flak in the southern Baltic Sea.
The government has also tasked several county administrative boards with preparing applications for permits for offshore wind farms according to the Act on Sweden's Economic Zone, including the wind farms Västvind off Gothenburg and Dyning in the Baltic Sea, between Nyköping and Gotland. They are flashy names for all these projects!
The government took office in October 2022, for those who have missed it, and the applications for the wind farms that Christofer Bergenblock mentions in his question were granted permission in May 2023. I therefore do not share Christofer Bergenblock's view that the processing of the cases has taken a long time.
I also want to state in this context that the government in May 2023 decided to appoint the investigation An ordered review of offshore wind power (dir. 2023:61). The investigator shall analyze how the regulatory framework for the use of sea areas during the establishment of wind power can be improved, as well as review how the permit process for wind power in Sweden's economic zone can become more efficient and clear. The purpose is, among other things, to achieve a review procedure that provides the conditions for an increased expansion of offshore wind power.
I do not intend to take any initiatives regarding the proposal to let wind power operators build grid connections and then sell them to Svenska kraftnät. As I mentioned initially, the government's starting point is that the one who connects to the electricity grid shall bear the costs that the connection causes. Furthermore, any potential sale of facility parts is a civil law matter between the actors involved.
Christofer Bergenblock (C)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! The world is in a climate crisis, and 2023 was measured as the warmest year so far since measurements began. Of this, almost nothing was noted in the climate action plan that the government presented in December. Instead of tackling the problems, the government's policy leads to increased carbon dioxide emissions - around 50 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalents by 2030 - when we instead need to reduce emissions. There was no climate plan; it became an investigation plan.
However, Madam Speaker, I agree with the government on the need to expand Sweden's electricity supply. Overall, we see that the need for electricity will likely double towards 2040-2045. In 2023, Sweden produced 170 terawatt-hours, of which 20 percent went to net export. By 2045, we are estimated to need at least 300 terawatt-hours ourselves. This is needed to meet the electrification of the vehicle fleet, the production of fossil-free steel, the manufacture of batteries, and so on. The prerequisite for meeting the green transition is therefore a proper expansion of fossil-free and renewable electricity production.
All fossil-free sources are needed; even the government's representatives have said that. But the question from the interpellation is still whether they really mean it. There is a broad consensus that land- and sea-based wind power is the energy source that has the greatest potential to grow significantly in the short and medium term. Perhaps we can have new nuclear power in 10, 15, or 20 years, but until then, the focus must be on releasing what is possible. And there, sea-based wind power plays a completely decisive role.
It was therefore with dismay that the industry received the news of the changed conditions when the government decided that the costs of connecting the new parks to the main grid would burden the projects instead of Svenska kraftnät, as had been stated previously in the Energy Agreement. This was rightly characterized as part of the culture war that the Tidö parties have waged against wind power, where leading representatives have dedicated the election campaign to polarizing between the power strikes and labeling the wind power in terms of endless steel forests of wind turbines that shall be imposed on the Swede.
On December 2, Vattenfall's CEO Anna Borg was interviewed in Ekot's Saturday interview and stated then that it is not at all certain that their offshore wind power projects will be realized given the new conditions that the government has now set. Primarily, Anna Borg spoke about just Kriegers flak, which the minister mentioned, which is intended to produce 2.7 terawatt-hours. But in the long run, it also concerns the large project Kattegatt Syd off the Halland coast with an intended production of 5 terawatt-hours.
Anna Borg also proposed a solution that the Minister is very clear about not intending to use. It involves the developer building the connections and then selling them to Svenska kraftnät, as has been done in other countries.
My second question was about what the government intends to do to secure the expansion of offshore wind power in Kattegat and in other parts of the country. I think the answer there was somewhat unclear. I therefore return to the question: What does the government intend to do to secure the necessary expansion of offshore wind power?
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! The Government has worked to simplify for offshore wind power in many ways. We have taken a number of measures. Offshore wind power has the potential to assist with increased electricity production, which is required to enable electrification. Here, Bergenblock and I agree on the same thing, Madam Speaker.
Offshore wind power has more full-load hours, that is, the annual production of electricity in relation to installed capacity, than onshore wind power. It can contribute with large volumes of electricity and high power. But it does not deliver every day, every day of the year.
What has happened by us now trying to be somewhat more technology-neutral regarding the power source, instead of saying that it should be a specific power source, is that we have leveled the competitive conditions between offshore wind power and onshore wind power.
This also means that we have a mature conversation directly with the wind power industry and say: We need you to participate and contribute during these total defense times. We need you to also be able to participate and offer the type of characteristics that the power system needs as a whole, that is, that one can manage to transfer enough electricity between different endpoints. It is about black-start, inertia, and all the important parts that are needed for a complex system to function. It must be able to function in peacetime and thus be able to be a driver for Swedish competitiveness, the job creators and the job makers, that is, the companies. It must also contribute to us managing the green transition through electrification. If one manages that in wartime and in tough times, it will go really, really well in peacetime.
That type of direct discussion with the wind power industry has not existed before. It has caused us to miss out on technological leaps and technological maturity in the wind power industry; that is my assessment. We see now that more actors want to be involved and respond. We see that different actors are faring differently well in these tough economic times. But there are several who continue to push on, and we regularly make decisions concerning the Continental Shelf Act and interests of building offshore wind power in Sweden. The industry has noted that we continue to pave the way for this.
We have also commissioned this investigation into an ordered review of offshore wind power. The investigation shall, among other things, propose under which additional circumstances the government should have the opportunity to review issues regarding permits according to the Environmental Code, and also investigate whether the government should review cases concerning Natura 2000 permits for certain activities in Sweden's economic zone. We are also reviewing the national marine plans. Thus, a great deal is happening in this area.
If I may direct criticism back here, Madam Speaker, I must say that it becomes a bit tiresome when the Bergen block raises rather old and tired criticism and talks about some kind of culture war surrounding wind power. It is about the laws of physics. It is about what the electricity system needs so that we do not lose thousands of jobs when Swedish mothers and fathers need to be able to put food on the table for their children and also manage their own livelihood. This is what it is about: to have enough power where it is needed when it is needed, regardless of which type of power delivers it.
Christofer Bergenblock (C)
Madam Speaker! I thank Ebba Busch for the answer.
Yes, it is about what the electricity system needs. So that is it definitely. The electricity system needs, above all, more electricity, and electricity needs to be delivered every day of the year. We can, however, state that none of the types of energy we have deliver electricity year-round, except possibly hydropower. Nuclear power does not. It stands still at regular intervals. Wind power does not either, for the reason that it is to some extent weather-dependent.
Here, offshore wind power is not at all as weather-dependent as onshore wind power. There, we have, for the most part, production all year round.
It is good that we have different eggs in the basket so that we can produce electricity in different ways and in that way also complement. We need nuclear power moving forward; there is no doubt about that. But what has the great potential right now is wind power, both land-based and offshore. Above all, there are very large opportunities in offshore wind power, which do not disturb people in their living environments in the same way.
Madam Speaker! The Minister says that the government has now adopted a technology-neutral approach. In the response to the interpellation, the Minister also says that the government's starting point is that all types of production shall bear their own costs. I think it would have been more reasonable, Madam Speaker, if she had been clear that one is cost-neutral towards the different types of power and can thus state that the connections specifically are something that the grid owner should bear and not the individual production facilities. Regardless of whether it is hydropower, nuclear power or wind power we are expanding, it would have been a neutral way to proceed.
However, the government is not cost-neutral in relation to the different power sources. The government has been very clear that it is prepared to put in 400 billion in state credit guarantees to secure the possibility of expanding nuclear power. When it is then established that it still will not be possible to expand nuclear power even with these 400 billion, an investigation is launched on behalf of Finance Minister Niklas Wykman to look at risk-sharing and financing models for nuclear power which will ultimately, if one looks at how it looks in other countries, involve large state subsidies of nuclear power.
It is not cost-neutral. It is not technology-neutral. On the contrary, one then very clearly chooses to favor one type of power over others. One gives nuclear power a kind of economic fast track in the system.
Nevertheless, the investments in nuclear power are quite far off in time. Above all, it is very far off in time before we have any effect on the grid.
What we see now, however, is that there is an opportunity to truly get the expansion of offshore wind power started. The question is how the government will ensure that this is made possible. If one does not take the criticism and the concern that Vattenfall's CEO Anna Borg communicated at the beginning of December seriously, it is worrying. There is a risk that neither Kattegatt Syd and Kriegers flak nor all the other large projects will come to fruition with the government's policy. I would therefore like to know how the government now intends to ensure that more of these projects are carried out.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I can start by stating that it looks a bit different for all these different profit-driven private companies. For example, OX2 announced that they proceeded with the project and funded the connection on their own. It has been pointed out that Svenska kraftnät would not be suitable to build these types of cables, but they have, I swear to you, built practically all our cables from abroad. It is also they who are to build the two new cables to Gotland, as it seems - or rather, it is they who have built the one that exists currently. It thus looks a bit different for different actors, and that one must still respect.
But we have, for example, not paid the connection fee for the land-based wind power. If one wants to claim that there was a contradiction when we gave the notice regarding the connection cost for the offshore wind power and set this against the nuclear power, I mean that one is going about it the wrong way. What has happened is that there has been a possible distortion between the land-based wind power and the offshore wind power.
I underlined it myself earlier just as Bergenblock did, Madam Speaker, and I want to underline it again, that offshore wind power has more full-load hours, that is, annual electricity production in relation to installed capacity, than onshore wind power. It can therefore contribute with increased volumes of electricity, which can have a value, and above all high power, which is positive. But then compare the onshore wind power, which stands at 9-11 percent, with nuclear power! Bergenblock pointed out, Madam Speaker, that nuclear power also stands still sometimes, but there is a fairly large difference between standing at 9-11 percent and standing at 74 percent. Now we must ensure that we protect the types of power we have and ensure that they can deliver more and that it is possible to get more power out of them.
And so we have the fantastic hydropower, which I usually say is one of the most beautiful things we have in this country, which delivers at 84 percent - but which right now, with quite a strong environmental impact on the surrounding nature and other things, is forced to be that which regulates upwards and downwards depending on how the wind power comes and goes, which it does a bit as it pleases.
Here we want to expand storage possibilities and other things, but we are not there in the current situation. In that case, there are a few types of power that can deliver and have the type of characteristics that ensure we get enough electricity where it is needed, when it is needed, and at sensible prices. It is for them that we are now trying to pave the way, and there we absolutely see that offshore wind power can be an important part moving forward. I mean that we have also taken several decisions during the past almost one and a half years that we have sat in a government position to give that credibility.
Christofer Bergenblock (C)
Madam Speaker! I note that the Minister obviously feels no concern regarding what the CEO of state-owned Vattenfall said clearly in Ekot's Saturday interview – that with the conditions the government has now provided, it is very uncertain whether one proceeds with the large offshore wind power projects.
At the same time, we all in this chamber know that those projects need to be carried out. We must have an expanded electricity production in this country until any new nuclear power is in place, because we do not know when it will be there or even if it exists. Even there, Anna Borg was quite skeptical because, as she said, it will not be possible to build any new nuclear power in Sweden on commercial grounds. There is no possibility, and the principle of risk-sharing and financing-sharing with the state is a necessity in order to be able to move forward even with nuclear power.
What we have around the corner is offshore wind power, and that is why it is so important that the government ensures it becomes an enabler for it. It is good that the investigations have been initiated now, but it is better to make decisions on more efficient management of, for example, the permit processes, and even better to actually make decisions on new offshore wind power. There are six applications directly on the government's desk and an additional seven distributed among the county administrative boards waiting for a decision.
We need to ensure that this is made possible, but what the government has done so far is to make it more difficult by changing the economic conditions. One can think what one wants about the agreement that existed from 2016, but those were long-term rules of the game that the market had, which the government changed and took away from it. From that comes the uncertainty that exists for the offshore wind power that we so much need in Halland, in Kattegat, and in other parts of the country.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! Those who wish to read a critique in academic bureaucratic Swedish of the previous energy agreement can read the Riksrevisionen's report on the previous government's energy policy. It was published last summer and is a joy to read.
It is also the reason why the government and the coalition partners have restructured the energy policy forward – it did not hang together. It was a settlement of political agreements that did not work in the face of reality. I am proud that we are restructuring it.
I want to emphasize that we have made several decisions regarding making it easier, including more allocation to the county administrative boards in order to be able to maintain the pace in permit processes. Developed energy planning contributes to the climate goals, to business development, and to a society with increased resilience. Efforts will, of course, be required at the national level, regional level, and local level. In the budget, the government has allocated 230 million kronor over the next three years in a new appropriation to authorities including county administrative boards, municipalities, and regions so that they can develop the work with energy planning.
We also have a new electricity market investigation underway, which we have presented to the new investigator. The development of the financial instruments is important so that production can be built.
But once again, Madam Speaker, actions speak so much louder and more clearly than words. In eight years, the two previous governments – of which the one during the last four-year period was supported by the Centerpartiet – made decisions on a sea-based wind farm project, in eight years, while the current government has made decisions on two new sea-based wind farms in eight months. We intend to continue in that direction but with the electricity system and Sweden's best interests in focus.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.