Response to interpellation 2023/24:847 on stricter requirements for energy efficiency

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! How pleasant to meet here, even if it is under somewhat less festive forms than the last few times when it was the solemn opening of the Riksdag and party leader debates.

Fredrik Olovsson has asked me what analysis was made regarding Sweden's possibilities of fulfilling the revised commitment in connection with Sweden, as chair, pushing through and tightening the energy efficiency directive. Fredrik Olovsson has also asked me what initiatives I intend to take to implement the remaining savings conditions.

In order for those listening to keep up, I want to start by clarifying the different requirements and national commitments that result from the revised directive on energy efficiency.

The directive now contains a binding target at the EU level to reduce final energy consumption by 11.7 percent by 2030 compared to the EU's 2020 reference scenario. In order to achieve the target at the EU level, the Member States shall contribute with indicative national contributions. These national contributions are, in other words, not binding, which was an important prerequisite for most Member States during the negotiations of the directive.

That the contribution was indicative, that is to say non-binding, was also important for Sweden, primarily so that the goal does not counteract the green transition in industry, including the establishment of new industries. The directive also contains a nationally binding requirement which means that the Member States shall achieve annual accumulated energy savings of an average of approximately 1.5 percent between 2021 and 2030.

Madam Speaker! The annual energy saving requirement and the national guiding contribution to the EU's energy efficiency targets are thus two different aspects of the directive.

To return to Fredrik Olovsson's questions, analyses were carried out of the nationally binding annual energy saving requirement in connection with the Commission's proposal, which was presented in July 2021. The analyses already showed at that time that Sweden would have difficulty meeting an average annual nationally binding energy saving requirement of 1.5 percent by only counting the energy and carbon tax, which is the policy instrument that Sweden has reported until now to achieve the previous annual energy saving requirement.

At the beginning of the year, the government therefore tasked the Swedish Energy Agency to, among other things, propose one or more methods for calculating energy savings resulting from other energy efficiency measures beyond the energy and carbon tax. The assignment also includes submitting proposals for potentially complementary socio-economically cost-effective measures in the event that the annual national energy saving requirement is not met. The government's direction is that the directive shall be implemented in a cost-effective manner, and measures shall therefore not exceed the energy saving requirement levels.

In conclusion, I would like to add that efficient energy use is an important piece of the puzzle in the work with the ongoing electrification and climate transition. It is both about reducing energy consumption in general and about lowering peak loads and thereby facilitating efficient resource utilization in the energy system.

Energy efficiency, however, cannot alone solve the challenges that the energy system faces. We cannot look at energy efficiency as a separate issue; instead, one needs to see the bigger picture where the needs for climate transition, competitiveness, and welfare must also be included.

The Government sees that Sweden's current goal for energy efficiency is not adapted for the industry's green transition through electrification or for the goal of 100 percent fossil-free electricity production by 2040. For that reason, the Government announced in the long-term energy policy direction that the goal should be reviewed in order to more clearly promote a socio-economically efficient use of energy and an efficient utilization of the energy system that contributes to the green transition.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer to the interpellation. We shall see what festive atmosphere we can create here this afternoon. It should be possible because energy efficiency is such a central part of energy policy and such an important measure to hold back costs, build a more efficient economy and, not least, ensure that we get a more efficient electricity use which would give us the opportunity to create space for new users without it needing to involve any large investments.

If today's operations can streamline their use, it does not only lower the costs for them, but it also creates opportunities for others to step in without needing to have the same type of extensive investments in new production or new infrastructure, which can take time to get in place. Streamlining is simply a way to speed up the electrification.

The potential for energy efficiency is also very great. The government's expert agency, Energimyndigheten, points out that more efficient electricity use has great potential, and it is estimated to be between 20 and 25 terawatt hours. One should know that the Swedish usage is approximately 140 per year. The absolute majority of this potential lies precisely in the residential and service sectors, with the emphasis on housing. Therefore, we Social Democrats have proposals for just such measures: a more generous rotavdrag for energy efficiency and money for the same purpose in multi-family dwellings.

In my interpellation, I write that the EU has now tightened the requirements for energy efficiency and efficiency, and quite significantly so. Ebba Busch was chair of the council during that period and is a minister now and is to implement the policy. When the government presented its updated climate plan, it could be seen that there was a considerable amount left to the goals for 2030.

According to the response from Ebba Busch, the result of the negotiation she conducted as chairwoman does not seem to be quite as important for Minister Ebba Busch now. Regardless of whether it concerns the guiding contributions or the binding requirements, the message is, by all accounts, roughly the same: The government does not really intend to reach them. One may rightly ask what analysis the government actually made before the negotiations when it was obviously not the intention for Sweden to reach them.

One might wonder what the government thinks will happen if all countries do as Sweden does, that is, intend to fail or do not even make an effort to do their part of the work to reach the jointly agreed goals. It is a strange way to handle an important issue in the European Union or for that matter in a country like Sweden.

I think Ebba Busch is responsible if the analysis looked the way it did. Was it even really the intention that the goals should be reached? Why, in that case, bind the union to goals that we ourselves do not intend to contribute to? It is still a strange strategy. The question is what plan the government has to deliver on what was agreed upon during Ebba Busch's chairmanship.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Festive atmosphere or not – it is a very relevant question that Fredrik Olovsson has posed to Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch, especially against the background of how the Tidö parties have previously acted regarding energy efficiency as well as the fact that the government still seems to completely lack policy in the area and a plan forward.

One has previously consistently opposed energy efficiency. Already in 2021, the support for energy efficiency in multi-family dwellings of 1.56 billion for the 2022 budget year was removed. That initiative disappeared when the right-wing alternative won the vote in 2021. When one came into government, one quickly and decisively removed Energisteget, an effective and appreciated support of 125 million to the industry. The purpose of the support was for the industry to reduce its energy costs and become more competitive as well as contribute to the national energy and climate goals.

But the most bizarre action from this government in the area of energy efficiency must still be that they shut down the investigation into a long-term market-based system for energy efficiency, so-called white electricity certificates, three months before it was supposed to be finished. We had already invested tax money and resources into the investigation. They did not, therefore, even want to know what possibilities existed to get better at efficiency.

The potential for energy efficiency is significant. The Swedish Energy Agency has, as mentioned, concluded that there is a profitable energy efficiency potential of a full 25 terawatt-hours of electricity by 2030. To put it into perspective, this is significantly more than the approximately 18 terawatt-hours that the government's goal of 2.5 gigawatts of new nuclear power by 2035 would generate. If it is in place by 2035, we can truly also consider.

Realizing this potential for energy efficiency is profitable in itself, but above all, it enables many new industrial establishments that are currently limited by the availability of electricity. Miljöpartiet has proposed a planning goal for 2030 to make 100 terawatt-hours of electricity available where the potential for energy efficiency is included - precisely this overall picture that Ebba Busch calls for in her response. We also have a long series of proposals in our budget to achieve this.

On the question of whether money spent on energy efficiency is well invested, the answer is a clear yes. In a study from the research institutes Energiforsk and Fossilfritt Sverige, it has been calculated that if we improve the efficiency of electricity use by approximately 10 percent, the electricity price in southern Sweden decreases by up to 40 percent. I believe that Sweden's electricity consumers would appreciate that significantly more than the government's increased electricity tax.

I really emphasize that I am requesting a plan. When will we see a plan to realize our potential for energy efficiency, Ebba Busch?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is clear that Sickan has a plan! Otherwise, I would not have this assignment.

I want to start with Fredrik Olovsson's follow-up question. Does the government intend to fail with these goals? Is it the case that we negotiate a whole European Union into setting a goal and say that we are proud of it, but in secret only want it to "tank" and go completely haywire? To that question, the answer is no.

It is the same thing here as with the discussion we have had regarding both our own national goals and our EU goals for reduced emissions by 2030. There, we have said very honestly and directly: The forecast for 2030 has become worse, and we will return with more measures that will make us reduce emissions by 2030 and be able to reach our goals within ESR. And voilà - now we have also presented more measures and a golden solution that makes us reach our commitments within ESR and within the EU for reduced emissions.

I would like to venture to read aloud again from my written response, also for those who are in the gallery and those who are leaving now - a warm welcome to the Swedish Parliament! "At the beginning of the year, the government therefore tasked the Swedish Energy Agency to, among other things, propose one or more methods for calculating energy savings resulting from other energy efficiency measures beyond the energy and carbon tax. The assignment also includes submitting proposals for potentially complementary socio-economically cost-effective measures in the event that the annual national energy saving requirement is not met. The government's direction is that the directive shall be implemented in a cost-effective manner, and measures shall therefore not exceed the energy saving requirement's levels." It is a clear goal. We shall reach this goal, and we need to have more measures in the toolbox to be able to do so.

Madam Speaker! As said, this case involves, on an overarching level, a goal for the EU as a whole with a binding part and a non-binding part. It has to do with the fact that we are now restructuring Sweden's climate policy from it primarily being borne by individual families' and households' choices as the decisive factor for us to be able to reach our high-set climate goals, to it being given more of the fundamentally decisive conditions so that the transport sector and our heavy industry can be electrified and thereby reduce emissions.

Thus, we can continue to be this golden green transition leader in the world, showing that it is possible to have high climate goals and at the same time drive economic growth, create jobs for your citizens and, in the long run, also secure welfare. We cannot have a national setup where we say: Unfortunately, we set such a tough energy saving requirement on a voluntary basis for ourselves that nothing happened with the green transition that could have cut several percentage points within heavy industry!

It is this balancing act we are performing. I am trying to answer directly here and now, Madam Speaker: We still have the ambition to reach these goals. The Energy Agency will propose more measures for us. The idea is that they will return with this in December this year.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! We seem to be in complete agreement that it is possible to do significantly more for energy efficiency than the government has done so far. It is not so strange, since so much has not happened.

As I said in my previous post, we Social Democrats have several proposals in exactly this area. It is about strengthening the deduction for energy measures in private homes. We allocate specific funds for energy efficiency in multi-family dwellings—money that would have existed if Ebba Busch and her party had not voted them away during the last parliamentary period. This naturally means lower costs for these households, but it is also something that is important for the entire system.

It is not only that type of measure that we want to see, but we also believe that a new market-based system for quota obligation is needed—that which Linus Lakso raised earlier. That question was in an investigation that the government initiated shortly after the change of government. This is something that the Swedish Energy Agency, the government's expert agency, also wants to see. The agency even highlights that as the individual proposal judged to have the greatest effect in the short term. The savings that can be achieved through cost-effective instruments that do not consist of tax or quota obligation systems are judged in the agency's partial report from April not to come anywhere close to closing the efficiency gap that exists in relation to the EU's requirements. Given that the investigation was initiated by Ebba Busch, the question is whether she shares the agency's analysis and is therefore prepared to take up the question of getting a market-based system in place again.

According to the Swedish Energy Agency, the majority of the savings requirement, excluding taxes and quota obligation systems, would need to be achieved through subsidies. It will be very expensive. It will be at least over 10 billion SEK, and of course even more if not even cost-effective subsidies are to be used. Ebba Busch, given what she said, should not be interested in that. If the gap can instead be closed with a policy mix that also includes quota obligations, the costs can be lower. At the same time, the potential for socially and economically profitable energy efficiency that is identified can also be realized.

When the government closed the door to the quota system, the white certificates, it also opened the question of what should come in its place. The government promised almost a year ago that a completely new steering measure investigation would be appointed during the spring. In any case, I have not seen it. It is possible that it exists somewhere. But I have neither read any directives nor seen that investigators have been presented. Ebba Busch is welcome to inform me as to when that steering measure investigation can be expected to arrive.

It ultimately boils down to this. What is the plan, really? Is there any plan for how the government will reach the goals and reach the potential for Sweden to become more efficient?

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if the answer raises more questions than it provides answers. It is, first and foremost, a very strange way of acting within the energy and climate policy that the government pursues.

First, you remove everything, and we lose two years regarding both energy efficiency and climate transition. Then you come up with some ill-conceived measures, or investigate a plan forward. We lose a lot of time in an issue that is very urgent. It is very serious.

The goal we have is adjusted for energy intensity, that is to say, it is linked to Sweden's GDP. It is absolutely no threat to the transition. Quite the opposite, it is something that enables the transition.

We must remember that the green transition does not necessarily increase energy consumption dramatically. It is about phasing out the 110 terawatt-hours of fossil energy that we use today and replacing it with electricity. Whether it will be exactly one-to-one remains to be seen. But that the government will reach the ESR targets is probably more wishful thinking than reality.

The fact is that the exact opposite happens. When you lower the tax and the costs for fossil fuels, it falls on individual households to open up their wallets to afford to buy an electric car. It is precisely the opposite of what Miljöpartiet wants to do. We want a massive investment budget for the climate transition and see it as a state responsibility, and we do not want, as the government does, to place it on individuals.

There we have proposed a state investment support of 60 percent to begin with to quickly get started with the efficiency work. Then we also want to see a long-term, well-thought-out and market-based system. We want to see an energy root instead of luxury renovations. There are many more proposals in our budget.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! We have not lost time. Sweden has won in competitiveness and in improved opportunities to reach net-zero emissions by 2045. This is happening at the same time as we strengthen our economy and secure welfare in the long term. Swedish households have received a small but decisive relief in a tough economic time.

Instead of having red-green fuel prices at 28 kronor per liter, the prices are now at 17½-19 kronor, slightly depending on the circumstances. Instead of having a political leadership in the country that actively drives up costs for ordinary households and for low- and middle-income earners, we are improving the possibility for them to meet their bills even at the end of the months, while at the same time we are improving Sweden's possibilities to reach the climate goals 2045. It is a win for Sweden and not a loss in time.

We shall do what is effective. We are talking about energy efficiency, and then we must also talk about efficiencies in control systems. We shall then talk a little bit about the white certificates, Madam Speaker.

The Swedish Energy Agency has, not once, not twice, but on three previous occasions been commissioned to investigate the need for and the consequences of different ways to design a type of quota system for energy saving. The agency has concluded that such a system should not be introduced in Sweden, partly because the instruments are not judged to be socio-economically efficient as they are not considered to correct any market failure that other instruments do not already aim to correct.

In plain terms, this means that an expert authority has on several occasions concluded that the quota obligation system is not the most effective management tool to ensure that energy efficiency increases. For those who find the political language and official Swedish a bit complicated: the experts have on three occasions concluded that it is an utterly foolish proposal with the white certificates. Therefore, we have streamlined the energy efficiency policy and left this idea behind.

With that said, I myself am passionate about energy efficiency. It is right for Sweden, and it is right for households in the long run to be able to reduce their costs. That is the reason why we were very happy to get the directive achieved. It is also the reason why our respective coalition parties have time and again since we took office prioritized it in our budgets. It is about the small house grant, which, among other things, was developed during the deep energy crisis in the winter of 2022-2023. It is also about energy and climate advice and energy planning.

In the budget bill, the government presented a proposal for a new appropriation called exactly Energy Planning. It is about being able to broadly enable different types of interventions to strengthen energy planning at all levels. There, we allocate specific funds to energy and climate advice in order to be able to support households that today, for example, have a heating of the house that is not particularly energy-smart and which also drives up costs. They shall be able to receive support in how they can review this going forward.

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

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Swedish growth is now in the European bottom tier, and unemployment is the highest in ten years. It is primarily the country's high-income earners who have received help when the government has tried to mitigate the effects of war and inflation. But the interpellation is not primarily about that, but about energy efficiency.

I have had that discussion with Ebba Busch before. Also then, she brought up the Energy Agency's reports and said that they showed that one should not speak of quota obligations or white certificates, because it is stupid. But that is not what is written in the last of the three reports. In that, it says exactly the opposite, namely that there is reason to reconsider the conclusions of the two previous reports because the conditions have changed.

It was several years since it arrived. Since that time, conditions have changed further through the deteriorations in the area that the bourgeois parties have implemented and now also the government and the Tidö parties are implementing, or through things that they choose not to implement. There is every reason to listen again to the expert authority from 2015 or from the partial report not so long ago during the spring. One may need to look again at precisely this type of market-based system.

If Ebba Busch does not want that type of steering measure, she must provide others. She still has not done so. The steering measure investigation that was promised for the spring is still not in place. Time is passing, and we are getting closer and closer to the date for the goal. But what is even worse is that we are not seizing the potential that exists to streamline in order to save money for households and companies and ensure that more operations can come in without us even needing to expand our electricity system. That is the smartest and best way. The question is why Ebba Busch has no plan.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! The Swedish Energy Agency wrote the following on 22 December 2022: "At Energiföretagen, it is seen as a positive message that the investigation into White Certificates has been stopped. Erik Thornström, who participated as an expert in the investigation and is responsible for instruments, energy use, and resource efficiency at Energiföretagen Sverige, comments: It is good that the government has chosen to conclude the white certificate investigation prematurely as this is a very cumbersome and administratively demanding instrument to achieve increased energy efficiency."

Madam Speaker! I have tried to answer directly both in writing, in black and white, and orally here in the chamber. The Government thinks it is good that we succeeded in bringing home this directive during the Swedish presidency, which also aims at energy efficiency throughout the EU. We intend to reach the goals, but not in a way that undermines the green competitive transition in Sweden. More proposals for measures will be presented and suggested by the Government from the Swedish Energy Agency in December, and I will gladly return to the chamber to explain how we intend to navigate these proposals.

It is not the case that Sweden is now at the bottom of the league when it comes to growth within the EU after two years with the Tidö parties. Sweden previously had no robust electricity system and no robust growth policy, and it was this that caused Russia's war of invasion to hit much harder against Sweden than against many other countries on top of the pandemic.

We are now laying this down with a historic growth budget. We are making a historic prioritization of infrastructure that no other government has done until now. We are making a historic prioritization of innovation and research. This is crucial for a green transition that leads to jobs, to secured welfare, and to a sensible financing of our common Sweden.

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

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