Response to interpellation 2023/24:438 on permits for offshore wind farms off the coast of southern Skåne
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns permits for offshore wind power off the coast of southern Skåne. L considers the production of fossil-free electricity to be a high priority and that the government is working to streamline permit processes. L argues that the government should make collective assessments of conflicting interests 1, that the energy system needs to function with the right capacity, price, and timing 1, and that both wind power and nuclear power are needed for the climate transition 2 3. S argues that offshore wind power is the fastest way to produce electricity 4 and that the government is hindering this by reintroducing connection fees 4 5. S considers that the government is not an enabler for energy here and now 5. S wants to know how it is going with specific projects in Skåne 6 and argues that the government has not made decisions despite completed projects 6. S proposes an interim goal of 60 terawatt-hours by 2030 7 and argues that the government and the government base are the only ones painting a conflict between wind power and nuclear power 7. S argues that the government has not made decisions regarding Skåne Havsvindpark or Triton despite the existence of recommendations 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.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! I have been asked if I can provide any information on when the government will make decisions regarding the planned offshore wind farms off the coast of southern Skåne and, if not, what it is that is causing the government's permits to be delayed.
Initially, I would like to say that I really appreciate that Adrian Magnusson has noted that the government is pushing forward the processing of all new applications for offshore wind power that are submitted. Additional preparation assignments have been given to the County Administrative Board after those that Adrian Magnusson mentions in his interpellation.
Increasing the production of all fossil-free electricity is a high priority for the government, and streamlining permit processes is something the government is working towards purposefully. This applies in particular to offshore wind power. The government has recently received the report from the Government Review Inquiry, which aims to clarify the government's tasks. It is an inquiry that is important, not least in times like these, with a deteriorated security situation.
In the report, there are a number of proposals that can contribute to a legally secure and efficient process, which the government will now work further on. The ongoing investigation *En ordnad prövning av havsbaserad vindkraft* (KN 2023:01) is currently looking at how the examination for offshore wind power can become more efficient and clear. The aim is to achieve a licensing procedure that provides the conditions for an increased expansion of offshore wind power while other societal interests are taken into account.
In response to Adrian Magnusson's question about what it is that causes the government's decisions to be delayed, I would like, to speak plainly, Madam Speaker, to clarify that in these matters it is a question of weighing several conflicting interests, the best possible technology, and the environmental impact that may be relevant in each individual case. Sweden's need for clean energy is a very strong public interest. Other important interests that must be considered before a decision on permits for wind power production can be commercial fishing and nature conservation, but also defense, cultural environment, and shipping.
I can assure you that the government handles all matters regarding permits for wind farms as quickly and efficiently as possible, without risking legal certainty. The processing is carried out according to the preparation procedures that exist in the Government Offices.
As Member Magnusson knows, the matters are complex and involve extensive documentation with many different issues and possible conflicts of interest. I cannot today anticipate the government's review of the wind farms off the coast of southern Skåne or any other individual matter. Nor can I say when the government will make decisions in the respective matters, but I can state that internal work is ongoing.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! It was not quite the answer I had hoped for, but I am convinced that the Minister is well aware of this.
The Minister and I agree on one thing, and that is that Sweden needs more electricity. I want to believe that the Minister also thinks that we need to have it as quickly as possible. According to several studies and reports, the absolute fastest way to produce more electricity is to build offshore wind power. This creates a lot of electricity, and it can be established most quickly if the government is ready to grant permits.
I can assure the Minister that it is possible to get a lot of electricity in Skåne from wind power, because it blows there almost all the time. The Baltic Sea is also an ideal location since there are few storms there but still strong winds, as I said.
The question of establishing wind power off the coast of southern Skåne is important for electricity production in all of southern Sweden. I perceive that there is a broad understanding of this in my home region. We need more energy production in Skåne, and if we are to get energy production in Skåne, as stated, the offshore wind power is the most efficient and fastest way. So that is that.
Another important aspect in this matter is what an establishment of one or more of the parks, regardless of the actor, would do for growth in my part of Skåne. OX2, which is behind the application for the Triton wind farm, claims that the establishment would mean 300 local jobs during the construction and then 100 jobs for 50 years. Then, of course, we are not just talking about the construction but about everything around it. People will eat and consume, yes, simply live, in that part of the country. For the southernmost part of the landscape, where the tourism industry is large, this would be a major and welcome boost. I can promise the Minister and everyone listening that.
Madam Speaker! The Minister refers to the investigations that are on the table, but they will not affect these specific applications, I would like to assert. The investigation *An ordnad prövning av havsbaserad vindkraft* shall present its results this summer, and it will take approximately one year before any proposal for legislation based on that investigation is rolled out.
The Government Review Commission's report was submitted on February 5, so any legislation on the basis of that investigation also lies a bit further ahead in time, I would like to assert.
Triton and Skåne Havsvindpark, which is the second large park that they want to establish and which the company Ørsted is behind, have all permits ready. The Natura 2000 permit for Skåne Havsvindpark was granted by the County Administrative Board in March 2023, and the County Administrative Board recommended that the park should be built in December 2022, i.e., after the new government took office.
A lot of money and a considerable amount of energy have been plowed into these applications. There are great hopes in my home regions, broadly among politicians from all political camps, that one or more of these establishments will be realized.
Madam Speaker! Through the interpellation, I want to give the Minister the opportunity to elaborate a little on why it takes time for the government to grant permission. The Minister has today listed some of the interests that the government weighs against each other. One might ask: Is it the Armed Forces that has views? Is it the fishing interest that stands in the way, or shipping, which the Minister also mentioned? Or is it some bickering internally within the government? I do not know. It is not being raised here, but that may be the case.
It is a pity that the Minister does not take the opportunity given, because apparently there is something that is causing friction. It would have been desirable to have a somewhat clearer statement at least about what it is that is causing friction, so that the residents in southern Skåne do not have to wonder and speculate.
The Minister states in his response that there are several different conflicting interests to be examined. It is the government's task to perform this examination and balancing.
Can the Minister at least elaborate on which interests the government considers to weigh most heavily in the assessment, so that the Riksdag can receive some guidance on how the process will proceed? Given that the results of these investigations are so far in the future, is there any other announcement that the Minister can give to southern Skåne?
Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank Minister Pourmokhtari for the answer to Adrian Magnusson's interpellation, which I also received.
We are in the middle of the green transition, and investments are being made everywhere in our country so that we can meet the challenge that the transition entails. It is clear that it is good for the climate that we carry out this transition. But I would also like to assert that it might be more important for our competitiveness as a country when we see that the whole world is transitioning.
In a world racing to see who will be leading in the green transition, and thereby secure their country's competitiveness and create jobs for their population, electricity production will be important. That is precisely what has been our ambition when we sat in government. It was something that I think we nevertheless managed quite well. Despite the previous interpellation debate on the climate goals with Romina Pourmokhtari and Jytte Guteland, I think that the Social Democratic government has succeeded well.
I still want to assert that this government also has good ambitions when it comes to electrification. I have understood it as that this government has electrification as a fairly important tool to achieve the transition. I agree that electrification is crucial if we are to achieve the transition. And we need to get more electricity in place and ensure that we can meet the demand for power from various industrial establishments. Here, the state can be an enabler and an active party to support an expanded energy system. One can, therefore, be an enabler.
But the government is not an enabler for more energy here and now. They have reintroduced the connection fees for offshore wind power that were previously abolished, and they have thus made it more expensive to construct wind farms in Sweden.
There are several applications on the government's table - not only those that Member Magnusson listed - that are also awaiting a decision so that we can increase electricity production, particularly in southern Sweden.
Vattenfall's CEO notes that when the Danish part of Kriegers Flak was built – a wind farm that Adrian Magnusson highlighted earlier – the Danish state covered the connections for this park, and so do other countries. But Sweden no longer does. We stand out.
Romina Pourmokhtari's running mate, Tobias Andersson, states that it will absolutely not be relevant to have any abolished connection fees for the offshore wind power, regardless of what the state-owned company Vattenfall thinks. Ebba Busch has also stated the same.
At the same time, one is prepared to spend very large sums on expensive nuclear power. One wants to spend taxpayers' money on a type of power that will become expensive, and then the energy that is subsequently produced will also be expensive.
Madam Speaker! What makes Sweden attractive is cheap electricity. That is exactly why so many people want to invest in Sweden. I heard that Minister Pourmokhtari said that one should not put all eggs in one basket. But that is somewhat what the government is doing now with nuclear power. Companies that want to make large investments are waiting for a decision from the government on whether they can expect the demanded electricity they need here and now. The government's answer to them seems to be: Wait for nuclear power. But the investments are here and now. SSAB says that they can produce fossil-free steel as early as 2030. But no more electricity production will come with this government, will it? Despite that, they are making it difficult for offshore wind power. They don't seem to have any plan for energy storage, and they also don't seem to have any plan for solar energy.
Madam Speaker! What is the government's plan for increased electricity production by 2030?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! I thank Member Magnusson but also Member Vencu Velasquez Castro for this fantastic debate on offshore wind power.
Fundamentally, this is a bit of the problem. Now we are supposed to stand here and discuss offshore wind power completely isolated from discussing nuclear power, solar power, and hydropower as if these are different football teams that we are cheering for. And we discuss how we should handle them individually in different discussions. That is not how the laws of physics and reality look.
The truth is that if you want a fantastic, well-functioning and clean energy system that makes different companies think that you put the coal, oil and gas aside and instead turn to electricity as the solution - the clean alternative - to conduct business here in Sweden and create goods and services that can be exported all over the world, then you must have an energy system that fits together and a whole that fits together and not sit and discuss how much you like the individual power sources. We can discuss how we should handle the individual power sources. But we cannot on the same factual basis discuss whether, from the opposition's side, you do not share my view that this is about an energy system where the system needs to function, where the grid needs to function and where the electricity needs to be there - right power, right place, right time and right price. This is what we want to achieve.
When we succeed in getting there again, after years of decommissioned nuclear power in Sweden, and when we succeed in building up this fantastic opportunity to offer clean energy to Swedish companies and industries, then will the new industrialization and the pace of the climate transition come.
The companies sitting there, like SSAB, with solutions, with clean steel and other things, are waiting for the electricity. You cannot just pop up a wind turbine, take a cable and run it into the wind turbine and run it into the factory. It is a bit more complex than that. It is an energy system that needs to fit together.
Madam Speaker! It is somewhat tedious to stand and talk about how the system should fit together. But sometimes politics is such that it actually is not straightforward.
When Member Magnusson asks which interest should be prioritized, if I choose Sweden's defense capability, Sweden's ability to offer clean energy, Sweden's conditions for fishers, or Sweden's protection of the cultural environment, I do not intend to choose any of them and say that it is my favorite and that the government therefore intends to act in this way. I want to make a collective assessment of which needs exist in our society, where I can only point out that it has absolutely not been sufficient how we have managed our energy over the past years. It has absolutely not been sufficient to watch while well-functioning nuclear reactors that can provide us with amounts of clean energy with the right power, at the right price, at the right time – controllable baseload – have been decommissioned. It has not been sufficient. So we cannot continue.
But we also cannot continue in the way that we only lean back when all these applications come in. And here, Madam Speaker, I must point out that we currently have 17 applications that have been submitted to the Swedish government regarding offshore wind farms. Not all of these applications can be approved. It would be very unlikely that it would work if we were to approve all these applications. A wise assessment needs to be made. These are market-impacting decisions. So, even though I would have liked to speak about the application from OX2 regarding Triton, I intend to stick to the energy system debate as a whole without going into the details. What is important there is that we have a system that works – not just more electricity, but more energy with the right capacity, at the right price, at the right time, and in the right place.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! The Minister and I obviously have completely different views on which parts of the government's work can be discussed. The granting of permits is owned by the government. In that case, I think it is reasonable that a representative for the opposition also asks the responsible minister when the granting of permits can take place. That the Minister does not want to discuss it is another matter. The Minister can choose to do that. But I think it is reasonable that opposition politicians can ask questions about matters that are to be put on the government's table.
I understand that the Minister wants to turn this into a nuclear power debate. I do not want such a debate, but I want to know what the situation is with the specific projects that exist in my part of the country, which are on the government's table and where decisions can be made. All that these actors, companies in southern Skåne and residents in southern Skåne, are waiting for is that the government takes this up on its table and makes a decision at a government meeting. I do not believe, however, that the Minister seriously wants to restart Barsebäck, the nuclear power plant that was decommissioned when I was five years old and the Minister was four years old. But it is clear that if the Minister has an announcement to make today that the government's line is to restart Barsebäck, the Minister is welcome to make that announcement. I would have thought it quite interesting if the announcement could be made.
I can also imagine taking out a map of Skåne and starting to point out where the nuclear power plants in Skåne should be located, because that might be a different line. We can stand here with red dots and say that a nuclear power plant should be located in Höganäs, a nuclear power plant in Nybrostrand, and a nuclear power plant in Kristianstad, but it seems there are no plans for that either.
There are plans for this, however, and what I want to get to is that all that is needed is for the government to make a decision. I actually think a representative of the opposition can ask about that, even if the minister would rather talk about the energy system as a whole. I think that is how opposition work should be conducted.
I spent some time during the election campaign traveling to various debates, both school debates and other debates. I remember how representatives from the cabinet's own party, the Liberals, as well as the Moderates, Sweden Democrats, and Christian Democrats, ran around and said: We must have energy production in the south! We must have energy production in Skåne, and we need to have it quickly. Preferably, we would like to have it already tomorrow.
What is happening now is that, as said, there are finished projects but that no decisions are lacking. Instead, reference is made to investigations that might lead to some form of legislation in time for next summer, if we are optimistic. I think this could go a bit faster.
The Minister takes up, for example, defense interests. I can only note that the Armed Forces previously had a mandate in the regulatory letter to have a dialogue with stakeholders for renewable energy, but that mandate was removed by the current government. It was the Minister for Defence's decision to strike it. I do not know if the Minister himself was involved in that process, but that dialogue is gone.
If one had had such a dialogue on-site, one might have been able to imagine that the process would have gone faster and more smoothly, but the Armed Forces no longer have that assignment. It is simply a matter of regret. I have submitted a written question to the Minister of Defence regarding what the reasons behind this are, and I will hopefully receive an answer next week.
No, I must say that I am a bit disappointed that this became somewhat what I feared, namely a nuclear power debate, because one is not interested in talking about matters that are on the government's table. I think we should be able to expect some kind of decision after nearly twelve months of collective assessment.
Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)
Madam Speaker! At the end of my previous speech, I mentioned goals for 2030. The fact is that the investments are happening here and now, and I would like to have some concretization.
The Minister said to Member Magnusson that a discussion must be had about the entire electricity system, and we can have a discussion about the entire electricity system. What does the government intend to do to increase electricity production over the next six years? What is the government's ambition regarding offshore wind farms? How many will be in place by 2030?
A proposition will be submitted now in March, Madam Speaker. We Social Democrats have long, ever since the parliamentary term began, proposed a target of 60 terawatt-hours by 2030. Is it the case that the government is prepared to join that? It would, in fact, mean that we would get an increased electricity production. It is not particularly ambitious to have a target of a fossil-free electricity system by 2040 when one practically already has a fossil-free electricity system in Sweden. Therefore, it is important with interim targets, and we Social Democrats think that interim targets by 2030 are reasonable.
I agree that the system must work. The only ones who have painted a conflict between wind power and nuclear power are the government and the government base. The Social Democrats voted for more reactors where there is nuclear power today, so if you want to build nuclear reactors, then just do it. We agree on that. But I suspect that you are not in agreement with the Sweden Democrats. Every time wind power is brought up, Tobias Andersson is quick to write: We don't want this. We will not facilitate any wind farms.
How do we then get increased electricity production? How do we meet the industry and ensure that the investments stay in Sweden? How do we save Swedish jobs by 2030?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! I therefore requested a discussion about the energy system as a whole and how that system should function in reality. In response, I received once again mostly discussions about individual types of power.
It is sad that one does not realize what reality looks like, Madam Speaker. It is also very telling of the type of energy policy the opposition pursued during their time in power. I can only regret that one comes with this perspective of favoring individual types of power. One stands in the installation speech and proclaims, as the party leader of the members, Magdalena Andersson, proudly did: New nuclear power? No, we shall not have that! One also claims that the production of 300 terawatt-hours of energy is something one can achieve by leaning back. That is absolutely not how reality looks.
What do we do then to not act like the previous government and let our energy system continue to crack? Yes, we do it, among other things, by reviewing how we handle all the received applications for offshore wind power. The reason why it is going better in Denmark is probably that Denmark does it in a different way than Sweden. We need to see how Sweden can improve and modernize its permit management of offshore wind power.
We need to supplement the funds. As soon as we came to power, we ensured to allocate 15 million internally within the Government Offices to be able to handle these applications faster. Therefore, I succeeded in approving more offshore wind power in one year than the previous government managed during both mandate periods combined.
There is much more to discuss here, but the deficient insight into how the system works becomes very obvious when the member speaks about where nuclear power plants should be located and how many reactors there should be. That is not how Swedish energy policy works; it is not the case that I, as minister, decide whether we should have new reactors in Barsebäck or not. Instead, it works so that a company that wants to operate nuclear power in Sweden applies to build nuclear power in, for example, Barsebäck.
We look forward to receiving all types of applications to build new nuclear power in Sweden. One is welcome to apply to build nuclear power everywhere in our realm, so that we have the opportunity to review where it is best suited. It is an opportunity that social democratically led governments did not open up for during their time in power.
How can we then not just manage the permits in a better way and provide internal funds to increase the pace, but actually do even more? One can indeed do more if one wants to, and the government wants to. What we have done includes, among other things, providing 100 million to the county administrative boards for the processing of environmental permits and an extra 10 million to Sweden's courts for the purpose of handling the permits. One can therefore do things both now and in the future, in the long term and in the short term.
The fact remains, however: If one means that it is simply a matter of approving offshore wind power, one is not taking the whole into account. It is very interesting to discuss grid connection costs, but it is actually most interesting to discuss the question of where the base load will come from if we are not to have new nuclear power. Is it more hydropower we are to have? Are we suddenly to utilize our national rivers to build new hydropower to make our energy system work? That is certainly not what the Liberals think.
I wish that we could reach that point in the Swedish energy policy debate that I desired when I ran for election on the slogan that we need both wind power and nuclear power to manage the climate transition.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! Had I been the Minister, I would probably have been quite careful about talking about what I ran for election on, but that is another discussion that we can have at another time.
The Minister speaks about the government not owning the nuclear power processes and the question of where the nuclear power should be located. But then we can talk about what the government does own. The government owns the permit processes regarding the wind farms we have talked about. The government can choose to convene a government meeting and make a decision on whether one or more of these wind farms shall be built. That is why we are here. That is why I stand here as an opposition representative and ask questions regarding this – because that is what the government owns. It was not I who dragged nuclear power into this debate, but it was the Minister. I wanted to know how it is going for the Minister and her government in moving forward in the process of granting permits for Skåne Havsvindpark, Triton, and perhaps one additional wind farm. Outside the southern coast of Skåne, there is also a third actor that we have not talked about. That park is admittedly a bit later in the process. Only one of these parks, Skåne Havsvindpark or Triton, could produce seven terawatt-hours. That corresponds to half of Skåne's electricity production, so that is quite a lot.
I know that the Minister's party comrades spoke about the need for electricity in Skåne back home in Skåne throughout the entire election campaign. When it comes to Skåne Havsvindpark, it has been finished for twelve months, yet a decision still has not been reached. There is something that grates here. I would have wished that the Minister could say that it is because there are two interests that are being discussed specifically, that they are not in agreement with one of the parties in the government base, or something else entirely. For me, it is insignificant. I would just so dearly like to know what it is that makes it take twelve months to make a collective assessment when there are recommendations from the County Administrative Board, the Natura 2000 permit is finished, and the issue lies on the government's table.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Let me then return to what I went to the election for. I went to the election to vote yes to Ulf Kristersson as Prime Minister. I went to the election to stand behind the decision my party made on the government question. I also went to the election on the basis that we need both wind power and nuclear power to manage the climate transition. All these three points are ones that I am now part of implementing in power.
It is very pleasant for the members in this debate to refer to the statements of the Sverigedemokraterna members in various media contexts, but the fact remains: It is I who am the Minister for Climate and the Environment, and it is I who, at the government meetings where Sverigedemokraterna are not present, account for the decisions we make regarding offshore wind power.
What I can say today is that during our time in power, we have approved more offshore wind power than the previous governments managed to do over eight years. We have added 100 million to the county administrative boards for the handling of the applications. We have built upon investigations such as the one the previous government commissioned and issued supplementary directives on how we can further refine the permit processes. We have also commissioned a major investigation on offshore wind power where we look into how it is that other European countries succeed better in approving offshore wind power than Sweden does – that is what we are currently working on.
We will, of course, as soon as it is possible, provide an update on all ongoing cases regarding offshore wind power. But it is not as the member claims: that all prerequisites for permits are ready and that all that is missing is the government's decision on the permits. That is not correct. The government has today 17 applications for wind farms in Sweden's economic zone, of which 7 are planned in the southern Baltic Sea. This, of course, affects the decisions. One cannot make decisions in every individual case without looking at the whole. It is something that I believe even the member understands.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.