Response to interpellation 2024/25:118 on the decision regarding more wind power

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I say a warm welcome to the gallery and the Swedish Parliament to those listening here in the chamber. It is also nice that there are people who have logged in at riksdagen.se to hear the debate.

Linus Sköld has asked me if I judge that the Swedish electricity system can manage without expanded wind power and how, in that case, I should act to supply the electrification of the Norrbotten industry with renewable energy.

Already during the sitting government's first year, the Riksdag changed, at the government's proposal, the goal for the composition of electricity production to refer to 100 percent fossil-free electricity by 2040, instead of just renewable electricity. In plain terms: We changed Sweden's goal from it being 100 percent renewable to it being 100 percent fossil-free, because that is what is important.

The Riksdag has decided to adopt the energy policy direction bill that the government submitted this spring; that decision was made here in the chamber at the beginning of the summer. It states, among other things, that wind power together with capacity increases in hydropower, combined heat and power, and existing nuclear power, as well as solar power in the short term, towards 2030-2035, can meet an increasing demand for electricity. It also states that more measures should be taken to improve the conditions for an efficient expansion of wind power.

The government is also working on developing a wind power package intended to improve the conditions for expanding land-based and coastal wind power. The first step was the proposal in the budget bill to establish a support for the municipalities based on the property tax for wind power installations. Furthermore, the government intends to proceed with proposals presented in the report *Värdet av vinden* (The Value of the Wind), with the aim of strengthening the local benefit and acceptance of wind power.

During the government's first two years in power, the power system is estimated to grow by 6,100 megawatts. That is a huge amount of electricity production in two years. Above all, it is wind and solar power that is being expanded right now. This concerns more capacity than what the investigation Financing and risk sharing in investments in new nuclear power proposes that the support for new nuclear power should cover.

The government I represent has, during its first two years, granted permission for three large offshore wind farms. The S-led governments granted one permit over eight years, while we have thus granted three permits in two years. Therefore, I think that the efforts made by the government so far have been good for wind power.

A question that this government, unlike previous governments, is working with and dares to speak about is the role of wind power in the electricity system. Since wind power is weather-dependent and constitutes a large share of electricity production, it needs to be able to contribute to greater extent with capabilities for a secure electricity supply system. Storage or flexibility services can contribute, and even hydrogen can contribute with stability under the right conditions.

A powerful expansion of large-scale and predictable fossil-free electricity production in the form of nuclear power is needed to ensure the security of supply in the electricity system in the long run. But an expansion of as much wind power as possible, without regard for neighbors and without regard for the electricity system's needs, is not the right way forward. We need to ensure that the power production that is added also provides more available electricity where it is needed and when it is needed, in the whole country, if we are to manage to carry out a competitive green transition.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Mr. Speaker! At the beginning of October, during one of this season's first truly cold days, I and some of my party colleagues were visiting Markbygden in Pite. Those we visited sent their regards that the minister, who is responsible for the issues, is cordially welcome to visit Northern Europe's largest land-based wind farm. There, 501 wind turbines stand and produce a few percent of Sweden's total power demand.

Since the permits were granted when the project began, i.e., quite a few years ago at this point, technological development has however outpaced the permits. Now, the Norwegian Statkraft, which owns a part of the park, has applied for a renewed permit to build higher turbines. But this concerns fewer turbines, which take up less land. It will therefore result in greater production on essentially the same area.

It concerns a small spot, right in the middle of an area with over 500 producing plants, for which a modified permit is desired. The Land and Environment Court judged that the activity would be permissible provided it does not cause significant damage to the interests of the total defense. With that opinion, the matter was submitted to the government nearly one and a half years ago - and here we stand now. This is the reason why I have submitted the interpellation.

The construction of Markbygden is closely linked to an increasing demand for power in northern Sweden. The entire steel industry in northern Sweden is to transition from fossil methods to fossil-free methods. It is not only about steel production, of course, but it could also be about fertilizer production or battery production. But the processes shall, in any case, be electrified, and then more electricity will be needed.

That is why I think it is justified to ask why nothing has happened in this matter. The need for power expansion cannot be questioned, and even if it is somewhat ready to break ground, it will take some years to get the additional plants in place. There is therefore no time to lose. A decision - regardless of which - is urgent.

Someone with a conspiratorial mindset might imagine that the Minister for Energy and Business, who ran for election on a promise to stop steel forests from being imposed on the Swedish people, sits on this issue because she does not want wind power to be built at all. Some measures that the government has taken have seriously complicated this. I know that the Energy Minister has had a debate on the permits for the offshore wind power, which she so proudly proclaimed here, but nothing will come of this because the government has decided that Svenska kraftnät shall not be responsible for the connection. In that case, the calculation no longer adds up.

The question is actually: Does Ebba Busch want more wind power to be built? Or is this actually about the fact that Ebba Busch is still against wind power, just as she was during the election campaign?

(Applause)

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

Anna af Sillén (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden currently has a projected need of 300 terawatt-hours by 2045 due to the green transition of the industrial and transport sectors. It is primarily stable and predictable energy sources that are needed, such as hydropower, nuclear power, and combined heat and power. This is not an entry in the culture war regarding different types of power, but a technical fact. Sweden needs an energy system where all types of power contribute to stability. This is important both for households and for Swedish growth.

The situation we find ourselves in is that Sweden's perhaps greatest competitive advantage - a clean and stable energy system - has been dismantled by previous S-governments. Six of twelve nuclear reactors have been decommissioned, which has had many negative consequences. This is known by both private individuals who pay expensive electricity bills and business owners who cannot develop their production.

This government, Mr. Speaker, has as a priority to recreate a stable energy system that delivers electricity at a reasonable cost and enables the green transition. This is an issue that we know Minister Busch is working hard on. The brutal truth is that it is quick to tear down a well-functioning energy system but takes a long time to build it up again.

In the reconstruction, of course, more than the climate issue must be weighed, not least Sweden's security. This is also a priority issue for the government.

It is against this background that the government's decision to say no to wind farms in the Baltic Sea should be seen. The safety of Swedish citizens is prioritized higher than these wind turbines. Not to take the security issue seriously when Russia is waging a full-scale war against Ukraine, with constant terror bombings against the civilian population, is to betray Sweden's citizens.

Mr. Speaker! The Moderate-led government takes this responsibility, and the Social Democrats should also do so. Take responsibility! Leave conflict rhetoric and the defense of impossible solutions in favor of a role where you Social Democrats also contribute constructively to Sweden's best, both when it comes to the energy supply and when it comes to the nation's security.

(Applause)

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I want to thank Minister Ebba Busch and the government for issuing a clear statement yesterday and rejecting 13 out of 14 applications for offshore wind power. We are grateful for that.

I believe that those who are most grateful are all villa owners and net subscribers. We had a meeting with Villaägarna this morning. They were very concerned that the network fees have gone up so much. It is clear that they have done it, I said. If you build wind power in the periphery, where there are no transmission systems, someone must pay for the lines. It will be the subscribers who have to do it – it is not more complicated than that.

What is the reason for this debate? The reason is obvious: the S-government decommissioned, with MP's support, six of twelve reactors. They gave up the world's safest nuclear power, built by Asea-Atom. It was believed that this nuclear power would be replaced with wind power. It is like believing in the Tooth Fairy. Think about that!

We must have robust electricity systems that provide electricity every day, regardless of the weather. When is electricity needed most? Cold winter days when it is calm. Then wind power provides zero. Then it is nuclear power and hydropower that provide electricity.

Hydropower is under scrutiny right now. I hope that the decommissioning of it will be stopped. We need every bit of hydropower. It is a very clean energy source - it is fossil-free.

Mr. Speaker! We cannot be naive. We must understand that we must have robust energy systems.

There are clear blueprints for building new O3s, like the last nuclear power plant that was built, namely Oskarshamn. It was Sweden's largest. All blueprints exist. In Forsmark, even the detailed plan is ready to build a new O3. In Ringhals, it should be possible to get a new plant there if a part of the Natura 2000 area is cleared. I believe it is possible to get started on this relatively soon.

There is not a single system based on wind power that is not dependent on fossil fuels. In all systems based on wind power - the Danish and others - one must have both coal power and oil power to top up with when it is not blowing. Wind power is fantastically good on fine summer days when it is a bit breezy, as it can be, and a bit of sea breeze - or a fresh breeze, as they usually say about the weather. The problem is that Sweden does not use that much electricity then, so there is nowhere to sell it. At best, one can sell it abroad.

(Applause)

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

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank both the interpellor Linus Sköld and the Minister Ebba Busch for this important debate.

I think it is symptomatic. We are sparking a debate about wind power and specifically about Markbygden, which is an accepted site to establish wind power on. There is potential here, but the government is dragging out the decision-making process. This area could be developed very quickly, and it would contribute to Sweden's energy system in a very good way.

When we want to talk about this issue, and about why it takes time, the Moderaterna only want to talk about nuclear power. Can the Moderaterna not talk about wind power? Can the Moderaterna say anything about wind power? Can member Kjell Jansson show the curves that show wind power's efficiency even in cold weather? There are facts and statistics about this, but obviously the Moderaterna do not want to take them in.

I return to the question itself. When it comes to Markbygden, there is great social acceptance for the expansion of wind power. The Defense has its views on height regarding the new wind turbines. This is an important issue. The cooperation with the Swedish Armed Forces in expanding our energy systems is something we must take seriously. This must be co-planned, and there must be a good dialogue.

It is important here that the government sits down with the defense. Why can one not, Energy Minister Ebba Busch, sit down with the defense to identify in advance locations that are suitable for establishment? By reversing the order, one could obtain permit processes that go much faster than now, when the defense comes at a late stage and says no with reference to it not being suitable.

There are many projects, which the government announced yesterday that one had to say no to, that could have been handled in a different way. Then the government would not have had to say no to the large amount of terawatt-hours that these offshore wind farms now cannot deliver.

Another question I want to ask the Minister concerns the incentive investigation for wind power. If we are to meet the energy needs by 2045, we need to expand wind power. This is probably agreed upon by everyone, not least the business community, which was very disappointed after yesterday's announcement. If we are to succeed with this, incentives are required. The local communities and the people who live there need to feel that they are getting something for it and that it is worth it. It is still an encroachment on land, and it affects the local communities.

The government has presented a proposal, but it seems quite tricky that one should re-apply for the property tax amounts from the government. Would it not be more appropriate with the Social Democrats' model, where one simply gets 250,000 per turn to reinvest in the local communities? Can we not look at a slightly simpler solution than the one the government has presented?

But above all, is there still no possibility that we can reach a political agreement on this issue? Is it not time that we stop waging a party-political culture war over Sweden's future energy and calmly and sensibly sit down and negotiate politically, discuss, and work towards an agreement on one of the most important issues for Sweden's future?

(Applause)

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by extending a big and warm thank you from the Swedish people to the Minister for Energy and Business and the government.

I think it is easy to forget what it was like in the autumn of 2022. Because I was born and raised in Norrbotten, I know exactly what happened in the autumn of 2022. It was shock-high electricity prices, and households and companies were brought to their knees. In September 2022, a kilowatt-hour cost 2.43 kronor while it now costs 21 öre.

There is probably nothing that has caused Swedish households and the business community such great damage as the decision Linus Sköld and the Socialdemokrater took in January 2020 when they, with a one-vote majority in the Swedish Riksdag, phased out predictable nuclear power. This occurred approximately one year after Linus Sköld entered the Swedish Riksdag. The damage that he and the Norrbotnian MPs caused when they caused power shortages and skyrocketing electricity prices will take a long time to repair. But thank goodness we now have a government that does not try to conjure with the laws of physics with ideological markings, but which calmly and sensibly ensures that Sweden receives predictable energy.

It is interesting when MP Ida Karkiainen from Norrbotten says that the government should stop with ideological signs. The new thing in Swedish energy policy is that the Socialdemokrater let their energy policy be governed by Miljöpartiet. Anyone can understand that when it is 30 degrees cold in Norrbotten, one must have predictable energy. It doesn't help that it blew on an August day in the Piteå archipelago. Predictable energy is required.

Just as the Minister for Energy and Business said in her response, she and the government are working around the clock to restore the Swedish energy system, and it is needed.

It pleases me, as someone who grew up in the military town of Boden, which was then closed to everyone except those who lived there, that the Armed Forces are so clear. The task of the Armed Forces and the government is to protect the Swedish people, and the message the Armed Forces gave last week was that the planned wind farms impair the possibility of defending Sweden. It pleases me that the government, in its wisdom, listens to the Armed Forces, and it concerns me that the Social Democrats do not. But it is clear, if one is in the company of Miljöpartiet, C and Vänsterpartiet, who are all against planned energy, the Social Democrats must stand here and talk wind power.

The old Social Democrats who knew how to build up industrial communities with electricity knew that it required predictable energy. IF Metall's chairman Stefan Löfven said that nuclear power must be expanded in Sweden. It was a pity that you did not listen to him. You have given a veto to Miljöpartiet in energy policy, and it has cost Swedish households and the Swedish business sector billions and billions, apart from the fact that factories cannot expand and that we lack energy.

I have never met entrepreneurs who want intermittent electricity, they want predictable energy that is running 365 days a year, around the clock.

The Social Democrats! Leave the ideology and come back to the energy policy!

(Applause)

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

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the one who has written the interpellation!

Approximately this is how the Minister for Energy and Industry has said: It doesn't matter what type of energy it is. I don't care as long as it is useful. I usually say the same. I don't care if it is nuclear power, but it must have the same characteristics because these are the ones we need to add to the system. But if someone has a better solution, you are welcome to provide it.

Hydropower, combined heat and power, and nuclear power are stable sources of power. They are needed because they function all year round, every hour and minute of the day. They build the foundation.

I must also stick to the facts. Offshore wind power is mentioned in the interpellation, and I will return to that. But I was terribly sad and actually went to the election on the basis that the stable system that those before us built up, with hydropower and nuclear power spread across the country to make the whole country function, has been pulled away by those who did not want to have nuclear power. It has partially worked nonetheless, but when we are now going to transition more and more to electricity and do not have nuclear power left but only the renewables, it becomes very unstable.

The government has two new missions underway for renewables. It must provide more effect regardless of the weather. If that is not the case, it does not provide more benefit. I live in a part of the country where there is a lot of wind power. It is a fantastic region where it should work well, but it does not, which is due to the technology, not the politics. One therefore needs a base of nuclear power. The other mission is about providing incentives for efficiency and storage, but the batteries mentioned in the debate are far in the future.

Perhaps there are companies that have promised that they will only use new, weather-dependent types of energy, i.e., green electricity, and they are having problems.

The government says that fossil-free is needed, and the whole world is transitioning to be able to use fossil-free and not only weather-dependent energy.

So, regarding the offshore wind power. According to Svenska kraftnät, Vattenfall would use the so-called bottleneck fees to build, among other things, Kriegers flak. But that cannot be done, because it is not permitted since they may not be used for new establishments but only for existing ones. This seems the Social Democrats have forgotten along the way, but it is therefore not possible.

The power of the wind requires larger cables and masses of copper. The energy must be great when it passes through, and it is far to land. The blades also wear out, so they do not last as long as people say.

One must include all parts when talking about wind power, and it is not as simple as it is made out in the rhetoric. I say as the previous speaker did: It is time to talk energy policy and stop talking ideology.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden shall become the world's first fossil-free, industrialized welfare nation. It is quite difficult to reconcile that we are not to have more carbon emissions but on the contrary must reduce them to zero, that we are still to have growth so that Swedish mothers and fathers have jobs to go to and can support themselves and their families, and that we are to have a strong welfare where one can rely on the welfare being strongest when one is weakest. It is tough to make that equation work. A decisive ingredient for it to work is that fossil-free electricity production is available where it is needed, when it is needed, and at sensible prices.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to clear up a few things, because I think there has been a bit of confusion in the debate so far, even though I appreciate the interpellation itself.

If you want to know when the decision regarding specifically Markbygden will be made, I am unfortunately the wrong minister to ask. It is my cabinet colleague Romina Pourmokhtari's desk. If, on the other hand, you want to ask the question as Linus Sköld has posed it, I perceive that there was a point in having just me in the speaker's chair. The question was whether the minister assesses that the Swedish electricity system can manage without expanded wind power. Some feel that it can be difficult to get a straight answer from politicians in Sweden, so I will try to make it as tight as possible here.

Can a power system manage without wind power? Yes. It is quite difficult to run a power system solely on wind power if one wants heavy industry that is also to run on fossil-free electricity. Do I think it would be good for Sweden not to say yes to new wind power going forward? No, I think it would be very bad. We need more wind power, because it is the only thing we realistically—without ramping up a lot more fossil power production—can get out before 2030. And it is urgent.

Sweden has over several years lost thousands - tens of thousands, I want to assert - jobs, especially in central and southern Sweden. It is because we have an acute shortage of power - not electricity. And what the hell is the difference? Well, simply put, over the last ten years we have gotten a huge amount more electricity into the system. It concerns the equivalent of 13,000 megawatts, and that is an enormous amount. If one is to try to explain how many nuclear power plants that corresponds to, it is approximately ten.

Just last year and this year, that is during the time I have been Minister for Energy, additional electricity equivalent to approximately five nuclear reactors has entered the system. Then many think: "Good, now we can connect many more companies and industries." No, we cannot, because on lovely windy days, electricity is exported, and it cannot be guaranteed that there is electricity every given second and minute, 24/7, 365 days a year. It is the difference between having a huge amount of electricity and having enough electricity where it is needed, when it is needed, and at a sensible price.

The question is what we do now. I will return to that and elaborate in my next contribution, but the main point I want to make now, to answer question two in Linus Sköld's interpellation, is that we shall ensure that the electrification of the Norrbotten industry receives renewable energy – that is what we can secure in the short term – and create incentives for it to deliver more power. It is therefore not just about more electricity, arbitrarily. The industry, which has built Sweden strong, cannot just have a little electricity whenever the power system feels like it. When the industry in Norrbotten needs electricity, it must be guaranteed to receive it. Therefore, it is important that we pave the way for new wind power – but that provides more power and not just more electricity.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Mr. Speaker! Kjell Jansson asked the rhetorical question of what the reason is for this debate. Both he and the others in the wind-power-hating culture war right answer the question themselves, so to speak. To all the Moderates participating in the debate, I want to say: Show some pragmatism!

The Social Democrats have not abolished nuclear power – we have built it. We have a proud tradition of pragmatism, of not thinking either/or and of having the strength to think both/and. Lars Beckman and his friends in the Moderaterna who are participating in this debate are not capable of that. On the contrary! They hate wind power. Perhaps that is the explanation for their way of debating. Perhaps that is why Ebba Busch cannot say unreservedly that more wind power was needed.

The reason why I, who live in Norrbotten where it blows and where the industry is to be electrified, am asking this question is that more electricity is needed in northern Sweden. If LKAB is to be able to continue with its plans, where other difficulties admittedly contribute to a temporary pause, if SSAB is to be able to continue with its plans, if there is to be any artificial fertilizer factory and if the industry is to transition and become fossil-independent, more power production is needed. In that case, I actually do not care that Lars Beckman hates wind power.

There is a fully planned area right in the middle of 500 works that are 200 meters high, and the government sits on the opportunity to make decisions about it on Thursday. I do not understand why it should be dragged out. But the answer lies in the reaction from the Moderaterna here today, and it is that they do not want cooperation on this. They want conflict on this.

It takes us back to the election campaign, when Ebba Busch also wanted conflict over this and claimed that we were pushing that endless forests of wind power would be forced upon the Swede. It was on Twitter, as it was still called then, on March 24, 2021. It then took about two years before Ebba Busch said in Dagens Nyheter that more wind power will be needed everywhere. It looks like a turnaround, but damn it, it took an incredibly long time to make this decision. That is one example. Another example is the withdrawn funding for connection points for offshore wind power, which means it doesn't seem like there will be any wind power on Kriegers flak. A third example is yesterday's announcement to deny 13 projects permission.

I imagine that a government that is prepared to burn 400 billion of the taxpayers' money to perhaps build nuclear power far into the future has the capacity to act - when they want to, as Lars Beckman does - and could ensure that this power production is expanded and find ways to solve this. But that is not what Ebba Busch wants; that is my best guess after the first round of debate.

(Applause)

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

Anna af Sillén (M)

Mr. Speaker! Members Karkiainen and Sköld should look more closely at what has actually happened before they claim that we only work with nuclear power.

Since the government took office, more than 6,000 megawatts of new electricity production has been added, primarily wind and solar power. It is more than the first steps towards new nuclear power. It is almost as much as existing nuclear power. It is obvious that the government is working with all types of power.

The energy talks requested here today, one has already been invited to. The Tidö parties were clear about what our goal was: a well-functioning power system that can ensure that electricity is there where it is needed and when it is needed. But after half a year, the Social Democrats still could not present their own credible line for Sweden. It is as if they have slept on their post and woken up a bit groggy. Now, one can either continue to grope for simple, unrealistic solutions or be involved and take responsibility.

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Mr. Speaker! To Member Sköld, I want to say: When nuclear power was built up in the 80s, it was done between the classic parties: the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, Liberalerna, and Socialdemokraterna. Back then, one did not go about making deals with the extreme parties on the left wing, who are against all technology and distrust our engineers in Sweden, who are incredibly skilled, and our industry which built up the nuclear power.

Then we helped each other, and you Social Democrats are welcome to settle things with us again. You are so welcome to us Tidö parties, but then you must abandon the Green Party's fantasies. Otherwise, it will be difficult.

To Member of Parliament Ida Karkiainen, I would like to say that when it is cold in the winter, approximately 9 percent of all energy comes from wind power. The rest is hydropower and nuclear power - approximately 50 percent hydropower and 40 percent nuclear power. Then there is a little combined heat and power and so on.

Wind power is green, it is said. How green is it when one starts to look at everything? When it comes to wind power, the main part is manufactured in China. Chinese steel is produced with heat power from brown coal. This is transported here. I do not see that wind power is particularly green compared to nuclear power.

We must be careful not to end up where Germany has ended up. They have phased out all nuclear power and are now completely dependent on coal power and oil power. They have an automotive industry that has been world-leading but is now on its last legs. We must not end up there. We must guarantee that the industry has robust electricity systems in Sweden. We are dependent on exports. 53 percent of GDP consists of exports.

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

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the debate so far! If the Moderaterna had truly been interested in leaving the ideological discussions about wind power behind, one would not be standing here and only talking about nuclear power when one de facto wants to talk about wind power. That is the first thing.

The second thing is that an extended hand, when it comes to energy policy, is about negotiation. It is not about coming to a meeting and taking a position on a finished proposal during a sitting meeting. It is about discussing with one another and about incorporating research. It is about sitting down and truly trying to negotiate and reach a political agreement. That is what a political agreement should benefit and strive for.

No such invitation has de facto arrived. That is something we need, I think, to achieve in Sweden. If we are to reach the goal of 100 percent fossil-free electricity by 2040, we must sit down and discuss this. No one benefits from the jerkiness in the political debate regarding energy and energy measures.

I believe we can manage this politically, even if it seems difficult right now. We need to do this for the future, and I believe we are in complete agreement on this in many respects, broadly across party lines.

My question is: When does the government plan to invite to a real negotiation about a real energy agreement so that Sweden can be built strong and sustainable and so that we can ensure that we get the electricity and the energy that we need until 2040?

(Applause)

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Mr. Speaker! Member Linus Sköld is concerned that the diesel price is too low. I am impressed that one can represent Norrbotten – my old home province, even though I live in Gävle now – and be concerned that the diesel price is now 16 or 17 kronor instead of 28.50. I am proud, satisfied, and happy that we have managed to bring down the fuel prices, not least for Norrbotten's sake.

I am also proud, satisfied, and happy that electricity does not cost 2.50 per kilowatt-hour, as it did in the autumn of 2022. That was left behind by you Social Democrats. Households were brought to their knees, and the business sector was brought to its knees. The government had to work around the clock to try to save the households' finances because you, for ideological reasons, let Miljöpartiet run the energy policy. It is completely incomprehensible.

I now understand that the Social Democrats here in the chamber would face a huge problem if the accident were to occur and we got a red-green government. We know that the Center Party is against dispatchable energy, that the Left Party is against dispatchable energy, and that the Green Party would get to decide everything.

That is why the Social Democrats are standing here, twisting themselves into knots and cannot honestly take the minister's outstretched hand, which I saw in Agenda and which I have seen in all possible contexts where it has been said: "But sit at the table!" I also heard Kjell Jansson say that you should sit at the table so that we can solve this. But you cannot do that because you are locked in by three other parties.

Anna af Sillén described very well how the Moderaterna are for all types of energy and how the government has expanded wind power significantly. We will continue to expand wind power, but just as the minister said, it will therefore not solve the power shortage. Sit at the table and negotiate! The difficult thing for you is that you then have to let go of Miljöpartiet, let go of Centerpartiet and let go of Vänsterpartiet.

You could perhaps take responsibility for Sweden instead and take responsibility for the business sector's energy needs and the villa owners' need for low energy prices? Then we solve this; I am completely sure of that.

(Applause)

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

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! For those of you following the debate, I can say that it has been said in the previous exchanges here that we are only talking about nuclear power. I cannot agree with that. We are talking about all types of power, in any case about solar and wind, above all wind.

I believe I said this: Two assignments have been given by the government. One must both look at incentives and look at the technology to see how one can find opportunities and pragmatism in this. It must still be counted as part of that part.

When it comes to who built nuclear power, it was as they said, the Social Democrats, Moderates, Christian Democrats and Liberals who were in favor of this. I thank them for that. I am very proud that they did it in our country for us, but I am very disappointed, sad and concerned about the serious situation we find ourselves in with the energy policy.

With one vote it was laid down and the last one was closed. It was chosen even though we in this chamber pleaded that it should not be removed what is the foundation, but let it remain while we build out. That is exactly what must be done. The foundation is nuclear power, hydropower and combined heat and power, and then one builds on with the other—the renewable—and finds opportunities forward with technology. That is how it should work. That is why it becomes such a skewed debate when one says that it is fine to do this and that the other is not needed. Yes, the foundation was needed, because otherwise you get nowhere.

We have also been involved in negotiations here, but what is it supposed to lead to? After the last negotiation, the prices for nuclear power were increased. Then, all of a sudden, it was no longer given that it should be used anymore. It could not be had, and then they said: "It wasn't us in politics, it was Vattenfall." But that is not true. It is so stupid with games.

Make sure to do this, because this is serious! We are in a reality where we are to compete with the world. We are in this situation with everything that is happening.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is about to become a rather broad debate. There are many parts that one would like to cut into and dissect, but I will try to be as constructive as possible. I enter with this starting point: What Sweden is trying to do now is to get away from the fight over the power strike.

We are moving towards a system with technology neutrality. The entire energy policy direction proposal was about that. As I was paraphrased here earlier: I don't care at all what type of power it is that delivers – wind, solar, water, or nuclear – as long as it can deliver all that "good stuff" that we know is needed for Sweden to become fossil-free and competitive and generate more economic growth and thereby secure the welfare. Then we need to ensure that we don't just have more electricity, but that we have the electricity where it is needed, when it is needed.

We have an electricity system that has completely exploded with more electricity in recent years, but it is electricity that is not available at any given time throughout the entire country. It becomes, to return to what the interpellation is about, also a problem, not least for the industry's transition in Norrbotten.

Mr. Speaker! I am still against steel forests. I believe it is very foolish to clear beautiful green Swedish spruce forest and replace it with enormous fields of wind turbines, which do not provide more guaranteed power to the industry and which the local population is opposed to.

I have, however, been clear that I welcome wind power. That was also the case before the election, but perhaps it is heard a bit more now that it has turned out that I became Minister for Energy and had my sights set on it.

Let us talk about what this government is doing that the Social Democrats failed to do. For the first thing, we are moving forward with the proposals in Värdet av vinden. Several of them were initiated by the previous S-government. That was positive, but it came after eight years in government. We are getting to work on it.

Secondly, it concerns the property tax and the arrangement to still be able to return a part of the value that the wind power generates to the local population. I am a former municipal council member and am always open to discussing whether changes can be made or something in the proposal can be adjusted. But it does not lie solely on my table. I do not have sole responsibility for it. I want to show respect for my fellow minister's responsibility in the matter of just the wind power.

It is also about sharp proposals to increase storage possibilities. We cannot store power production from several months of windy days and keep it until a completely different season. That technology does not exist anywhere in this universe. It is an environmentalist unicorn. We cannot let the industry's transition rest on that. We can do some with storage, but not that much. We are working with flexibility and aggregation services.

Yesterday, the announcement also came that we are now to develop the exact technical specifications needed to extract more power from all the electricity produced by wind power. Then we can say yes to more wind power, but wind power that provides more power. Everyone wants that.

Furthermore, we have given our authorities new assignments concerning more incentives for all this weather-dependent power production. It shall become more profitable to contribute to a more robust electricity system.

We have also given the county administrative boards more resources so that they can maintain a higher pace in the decision-making processes. It is good for everyone, regardless of whether one receives a yes or a no.

It is concrete proposals that S was unable to manage but that we can manage.

(Applause)

In this speech, Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M) agreed.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Mr. Speaker! I welcome the power-strike-neutral approach here, regardless of who it comes from. The origin of the statement about steel forests, which has been on repeat and which I assume Ebba Busch has had to answer for many times beyond this debate, was a campaign technical question from the right where the power strikes were pitted against each other. That is why Ebba Busch said that new nuclear power would be built within 100 days of her taking office, and that is why we have a situation where one is prepared to indebt generations of Swedes and raise taxes to finance the expansion of new nuclear power.

We have had a blinded debate that has not been power-neutral. I think a little pragmatism is in order and I truly welcome that line.

When it comes to concrete proposals, it is worth mentioning in this context that the Social Democratic group, together with the rest of the opposition, has submitted a proposal for a committee initiative to ensure that the funding for the connection points for offshore wind power can be recovered. The government parties rejected this at the committee meeting today. It can only be regretted. This means that Krieger's barges still will not be built.

In that way, it continues. Ebba Busch says that she is still against steel forests. I know that Ebba Busch was in Norrbotten in August this year without visiting Markbygden, where Northern Europe's largest wind farm is located. I think it would be appropriate to come and visit the steel forest. Because it is not as steel-foresty as Ebba Busch wants to give the impression of here in the chamber.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I have in several international contexts said that I am on a global mission to remove the politics from the energy policies around the world and bring the physics back in. We have a bit left to do in Sweden.

Regarding the question of steel forests, it has actually had to do with local acceptance. In order to be able to make this work, I believe it is incredibly important that we do not push such large-scale interventions on people without them wanting it themselves. These are difficult goal conflicts, and they cannot always be worked around.

That is why it is important that we now give the wind power companies incentives to contribute more power from all the electricity they produce. But we have also had this proposal put in place which could increase the incentive to say yes. Approximately half of all "no" decisions to wind turbines on land are because the municipalities say no. If we can address that, it is a great gain.

I gladly visit Markbygden. I travel often.

We are, as said, keen to maintain the pace in the permit processes. But I know that all representatives of the business community, Sweden's job creators, who are now to carry out the green transition, do not want to be dependent on watching the meteorologists on the news in the evening to find out whether they will have electricity to carry out their transition or not. Therefore, we need to get the technicalities together, put physics at the center and prioritize it – regardless of which type of power delivers the electricity.

Mr. Speaker! Not directed at Linus Sköld, but by reason of the debate that has been ongoing since yesterday, I would like to take the opportunity to address the conspiracy theories and the politicization. There are some things we must manage to rise above the party block boundaries regarding. It is about the defense of Sweden.

The Armed Forces make the assessment that large parts of the sea-based wind farms that have been applied to build make it more difficult to seek protection in time, to shoot down robots, to read enemy communications, and to lead the defense. Sweden is worth defending. We must listen to this. I do not know what it is that makes certain parts of the opposition think it is worth playing Russian roulette with the defense of the Realm of Sweden. We will not support that.

(Applause)

In this speech, Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M) concurred.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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