Response to interpellation 2024/25:182 on the plan for increased electricity production by 2030 and 2035
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 2 KD considers that Sweden has an electricity surplus and that wind power is welcome 1 2. KD wants to improve the conditions for wind power through support to municipalities and compensation to neighbors 1 2. KD argues that it is difficult to set specific goals for dispatchable power as it depends on the investments 1 2. KD argues that production capacity has grown by 5–7 percent per year and that Sweden does not suffer from a shortage of electricity, but from a shortage of electricity where it is needed 3. 4 MP argues that Sweden does not suffer from a capacity shortage and that the government lacks a plan for dispatchable power 4. 4 MP proposes a planning goal of 10 gigawatts by 2030 and 2035 4. 5 MP considers that the government has limited electrification and that there is a lack of new nuclear power in the near term 5. 6 MP argues that the expansion rate of new power production has decreased significantly during the government's mandate period 6. 6 7 MP criticizes the government's rhetoric against wind power, which has led to municipalities using municipal vetoes 6 7. 6 MP considers that the government has laid a dead hand over offshore wind by proposing an allocation system without transitional solutions 6 and that they have removed support for energy efficiency 6. 7 MP emphasizes the need for offshore wind power for the industry's climate transition 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! Linus Lakso has asked me what my plan is to meet the business community's demand for fossil-free electricity, which they demand for their climate transition and their investment plans before 2030 and 2035. He has also asked me what the purpose is of the control points for 2030 and 2035, what I intend to achieve by then and what it is that is to be controlled. These are very relevant questions, if I may be allowed to comment on them.
Finally, Linus Lakso has asked how many gigawatts of dispatchable power and what flexibility Kraftlyftet will generate and what the timelines look like.
To begin with, I believe it is important to state that Sweden's electricity system today generates more electricity production than we consume. We therefore have a substantial surplus of electricity compared to what we use. Last year, Sweden had a net export of electricity of 28.5 terawatt-hours. This means that on an annual basis, we already have a substantial surplus of electricity that can be used for the growing domestic industry in the coming years. In the Swedish Energy Agency's short-term forecast, the electricity surplus also increases in the coming years so that the net export amounts to 45 terawatt-hours in 2027.
In the Swedish Energy Agency's scenarios, the installed wind power in particular increases significantly towards 2030, but some solar power also increases. This means an increase from today's 51 gigawatts to 67 gigawatts in total installed capacity, that is, an increase of 16,000 megawatts of installed capacity primarily from weather-dependent power.
The problem is only that the electricity production being built in the form of wind and solar power does not deliver power – that is the magic word – every hour of the year, which the industry needs. Such electricity production must therefore, to a greater extent, be built with the right characteristics and in the right places. Therefore, it is important that even intermittent electricity production, such as wind power, can contribute to the electricity system's security of supply to a greater extent.
With that in mind, the government now intends to give Svenska kraftnät, the Energy Agency, and the Energy Markets Inspectorate two joint assignments. The assignments aim to create better conditions so that intermittent power production, such as solar and wind power, can contribute to a robust electricity system with improved operational reliability and resource adequacy. The assignments were decided in December 2024 and shall be reported at the end of 2025, that is, this year.
The purpose of the control points for 2030 and beyond is to follow up on the planning goal and the security of supply goal to see if anything needs to be adjusted based on changed conditions, for example, the government's assessment of the need for electricity in different geographical areas and in different time perspectives. The control points should also include a socio-economic analysis of the consequences of the expansion of the electricity system as well as measures to increase cost-effectiveness.
Regarding measures to increase the expansion rate of the electricity system, the government also has a number of proposals in the budget bill for 2025. Sweden needs a powerful expansion of new fossil-free electricity production, and the government wants to provide good conditions for all types of fossil-free energy.
Wind power can, in the short term, account for the majority of new electricity production. The Government is therefore working on developing a wind power package to improve the conditions for expanding wind power. The first step was the proposal in the budget bill to establish a support to the municipalities based on the property tax for wind power installations. In addition, the proposals for compensation to neighbors and the local community, which were presented in the report The Value of the Wind (SOU 2023:18), are being prepared in order to strengthen the local benefit and the acceptance of wind power.
The power lift aims to increase the electricity system's capabilities regionally and where the needs are greatest. This can involve investments in electricity production, energy storage, energy efficiency, flexibility services or other system services that, at present, are not feasible on market terms, in connection with the previous interpellation and the question from Riise.
The support amounts to 700 million kronor between 2025 and 2027 with a proposal for an extended and reinforced ordering authorization for the appropriation with the possibility of entering into new financial commitments until 2030. What that means in terms of upcoming regulatory power and flexibility is difficult to say in advance - I must be honest about that - and depends entirely on the investments that take place.
Regarding the timeline, it can be noted that Kraftlyftet needs to be analyzed from a state aid perspective as a notification to the EU Commission may be required for an investment grant. That issue is currently being prepared within the Government Offices.
In the budget bill, it is also proposed that Klimatklivet receive its own supplement of half a billion in 2025, half a billion in 2027, 200 million in 2029, and 100 million in 2030 compared to previously decided levels. It is thus being increased. In addition to the reinforcement, Klimatklivet is extended to 2030. It is easy to forget that even this type of investment contributes to a green transition and accelerated electrification.
In conclusion, the government assesses that the design of the electricity market needs to be developed to provide long-term conditions for investments, primarily in electricity production and flexible resources. In January 2024, the government therefore appointed a special investigator who shall analyze and propose how the Swedish electricity market can be developed and regulated. The assignment shall be reported by April 25, 2025, at the latest.
Linus Lakso (MP)
Madam Speaker! I must begin by hooking on a bit regarding these energy lectures that the Minister for Energy has taken to habit of holding. I unfortunately need to correct a part of them.
But to begin with, a very relevant question was posed here earlier: Does the Minister for Energy think it is good or bad that wind power is being expanded? The answer to that seems to be about as volatile as electricity prices were in December.
Sweden does not suffer from a power shortage. I can start by explaining that to the Minister for Energy. If we were to do so, the frequency would drop immediately. That is actually what happened in the spring of 2023, when a fault in a substation here in the Stockholm area caused two reactors in Forsmark and a combined heat and power plant, Värtaverket, to shut down. Then the frequency dropped to 49.3 hertz, which is a fairly significant deviation. That is a power shortage.
We do not have any power shortage in Sweden. On the contrary, we have a power surplus almost every hour of the year and export electricity. It is the case that after seven or eight years of red-green politics, we have a large electricity surplus, which is very good. This can be compared to when the Kristdemokraterna ruled last. Then we were import-dependent and imported German and Polish coal power.
Then I am very surprised by the high tone regarding effect and the sting that Ebba Busch tries to deliver against the fact that we would have no answer to the question of effect. In the interpellation answer, there are parts that I really agree with, and it concerns Kraftlyftet. But it is for the simple reason that it is a pure copy of the Miljöpartiets policy; in the previous budget, we proposed an initiative named Kraftsteget with exactly the same content. The problem is only that the government has no idea at all what this will yield. One has, therefore, no goal for dispatchable power, which is what Ebba Busch herself stands here and says is needed. Literally, the answer is: "What it means in terms of upcoming dispatchable power and flexibility is difficult to say in advance and depends entirely on the investments that occur." Yes, it is clear that it does. But that is exactly what a government needs to have a plan for.
Miljöpartiet has instead proposed partly a significantly larger investment in money to truly achieve more controllable power, which we nevertheless seem to agree is needed, and partly a planning goal of 10 gigawatts by 2030 and 2035. This is completely in line with what very heavy experts say is needed. My question to Ebba Busch is: Why do you not stand behind such a planning goal in gigawatts – or propose your own goal – so that we get an indication of what we need and a goal for actors to work towards?
There is quite a lot to say about the expansion rate. Development is heading in the completely wrong direction there. I will return to that in my next contribution. We see a very alarming trend: that less and less power is being added and that the expansion rate is decreasing. The electrification is also a major failure of this government. We need a demand that makes us replace fossil fuels with fossil-free electricity. But I will return to that in the next contribution.
Nils Seye Larsen (MP)
Madam Speaker! It feels very exciting to be here and discuss energy policy with Energy Minister Ebba Busch for the first time.
Energy issues are incredibly important for Sweden's future. A long-term policy based on broad agreements is needed, which we have worked on previously. These agreements need to be cross-bloc and firmly anchored in the existing science and research in order to find the best solutions. A clear plan for the energy supply is also needed, which plays a very important role in the climate transition.
To say something positive about what I hear and what is stated in several reports that I have read, including the strategy for the new industrialization in Norrbotten and Västerbotten, I feel that there is an understanding by the Minister for Enterprise for how we need to expand the energy sector and that wind power plays a very important role. We need electricity in the near term, and we need to expand it quickly for the climate transition, for the transition of our transports and for the transition of our industry. Here, offshore wind power plays an important role, partly because it is more stable and reliable, and partly and above all because it can be expanded in southern Sweden, where we have a great need.
What I might find a bit of a shame is that for several years from Ebba Busch and others, very harsh rhetoric has come that has absolutely not been energy-neutral. We have, for example, had to counter a great deal of rhetoric regarding steel forests and other things, which I can think is a shame. I hope that instead we can get onto a line where one tries to look forward for Sweden's best.
In 2022, when we got the Tidö government in place, Ebba Busch said at a press conference, among other things, that Sweden would manage the climate transition and fulfill its part of the Paris Agreement, that the goal moving forward is electrification and that the path there is spelled nuclear power. We can now state that several years have passed and that it does not look like there will be new nuclear power in the near future. It might not be until 2035, and it will cost very much for the taxpayers and households.
At the same time, they have limited the important electrification and destroyed the prerequisites. Now it is almost so that 1 kilowatt-hour of fossil-free electricity produced here in Sweden is taxed higher than 1 kilowatt-hour of fossil diesel and gasoline that we import from other countries. I think that is a pity. We would need a long-term policy when it comes to both energy policy and the climate transition.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the follow-up questions from Nils Seye Larsen. It is pleasant to meet here in the chamber for the first time.
I also thank Linus Lakso for a tough but fun debate. One does not want to be perceived as volatile. Let me therefore be very clear: Wind power is so welcome!
That is how I think we also show in action. There is now more money at the Government Offices to be able to process more cases faster. We have truly prioritized forcing through many decisions simultaneously, even though there have unfortunately been many no's in light of the defense situation and that Sweden has a different geography than, for example, large parts of Denmark where sea-based wind power has been built. We have also shown it through more money and assignments to the County Administrative Boards, which have also been a bottleneck in the handling of many cases regarding wind power, and through the possibility of returning money via the property tax for the wind power if it is built on land; it increases the incentive to say yes.
I also, of course, want to mention the Electricity Market Inquiry, which I think has received far too little attention. I know that Linus Lakso is well acquainted with it, but to speak to the broad masses out there: Write more about the Electricity Market Inquiry, because it takes the holistic approach! The Nuclear Power Inquiry with Mats Dillén concerns specifically nuclear power. For 30 years we have not looked at how we should pave the way for nuclear power in Sweden, so it is not so strange that one conducts a specific inquiry into that; for wind power, we have done very much. But the Electricity Market Inquiry is actually the great crown jewel that we are working on. It is technology-neutral and is intended to look at the whole of the system.
I want to give answers to two specific questions that I perceived beyond this matter of how we view wind power. I have tried to give honest and straightforward answers anchored in reality and be open. No, I cannot say what the target should be for how much more controllable power should be released; I hope that we can return to that. It is also the reason why we said no to setting specific targets for 2030 and 2035.
Between the right thumb and left index finger we can perhaps say roughly how much can be released, but it is difficult to say anything more exact than that. I do not want to set a goal that sounds good and that many then talk about, even though we do not know how realistic it is. We must return to this.
Now we are changing the rules of the game to pave the way for more controllable power and more base power. Then we can return to whether it is possible to set a goal and fine-tune the whole thing after that.
Let me conclude by saying that Entso-e, which is one of the heaviest actors when it comes to this, in its Winter Outlook for 2024 is clear that bidding zones 3 and 4 have the worst capacity shortage in the entire EU. We cannot take this lightly, and that is precisely why many of the 60 measures in the short and medium term that we have decided upon are about getting more capacity out of the electricity that is produced, so that more electricity is available where it is needed and when it is needed, not only when the weather allows.
Linus Lakso (MP)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ebba Busch, for the answer! It was nice that we received a clarification that the government, at least in theory, does not intend to continue opposing wind power. But in reality, it does not look as bright.
We have thus gone from, when we handed over government power to this government, having a record-sized expansion of new power production, primarily in the form of wind, of about two gigawatts. Up until this year, during Ebba Busch's first two years, it has been halved to one gigawatt, and the forecast is that it will be halved again in 2026-2027. The result of Ebba Busch's mandate period is thus a reduction of the expansion rate by 75 percent.
This is due to many factors. To a large extent, it is about the fact that the Tidö parties oppose renewable energy in many different ways, not least out in the municipalities, where they say no with the help of the municipal veto. For example, the Kristdemokraterna stopped 75 percent of all new wind power through veto. Only the Sverigedemokraterna have stopped more. It is power production that would be very welcome even in SE4, plus dispatchable power, as we spoke about earlier.
Miljöpartiet has for over ten years pushed for municipalities and neighbors to receive compensation when wind power is built. Here, we are pleased that other parties have changed their minds. It remains to be seen what effect that will have. But the fact is that many municipal politicians have already promised in the election to say no to new wind power, and that is due in no small part to the extremely harsh rhetoric that Ebba Busch has driven against wind power. It is difficult to see that they could change their minds during this parliamentary term.
We have seen deteriorations for solar energy as well. The so-called 60-öre for surplus power has been removed. The green deduction has also been lowered in the middle of a recession. Strategically!
The government has removed all previous support for energy efficiency. In its own energy plan, the government assesses that it will not even reach the EU's low target for 2030, where a successful policy for energy efficiency could release as much as 25 terawatt-hours by 2030.
When it comes to offshore wind, it is well known that the government has laid a dead hand over the entire Baltic Sea instead of finding a solution that combines both the energy interest and the defense interest. It is the government's responsibility to do that, not the Armed Forces', and the government needs to take that responsibility.
Since then, you have de facto put a stop to the remaining offshore wind, at least for the next ten years, by proposing an unfinished investigation into switching to a designation system, completely without functioning transitional solutions. It lays a dead hand over the remaining offshore wind.
One can think what one wants about the proposal for the financing of new nuclear power, but even nuclear power advocates agree that it places a dead hand over investments in other production. If the heavy subsidies are introduced, it also risks competing out even existing nuclear power. That is a catastrophe in itself.
The government's policy absolutely does not lead to increased investments in power production, but on the contrary, they decrease them significantly. The question is what Ebba Busch intends to change to get the investments moving.
Nils Seye Larsen (MP)
Madam Speaker! I want to link to what Linus raised. Something that worries me very much is the expansion rate when it comes to offshore wind power, especially along the southern coastal stretches in Sweden. We would need that wind power for the industrial and climate transition to secure our energy supply moving forward, so that it is based on Swedish-produced, green fossil-free electricity. We need electricity in the near term. Now we are threatening the climate transition that we need to make.
We could take great steps and be an example for the rest of the world. Therefore, we need to invest in creating the conditions for the expansion of offshore wind power in the near term. That is what the industry is demanding in southern Sweden.
The unfortunate and populist rhetoric that has been used has led to municipal politicians vetoing wind power projects that we need to get realized in the near future. I therefore hope for a more constructive rhetoric going forward when it comes to the energy supply.
With the enormous expansion that needs to take place not only in Sweden but in the rest of Europe, we also need to look at all the alternatives that exist in order to be able to regulate production and supply that do not rely on base load from nuclear power.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! During the last two years, 2023 and 2024, the installed production capacity has grown by 5-7 percent per year. A growth of 7 percent per year means a doubling of the production capacity in ten years. We are therefore not seeing a low pace in the supply of installed production capacity. It remains steadily very high.
Again: Sweden's big problem is not a lack of electricity. Sweden's big problem is that we do not have enough electricity where it is needed and when it is needed and at even, reliable prices.
I believe I have answered well, both in writing and orally, regarding the measures now being taken to pave the way for more fossil-free power, more controllable power, and more base load, and for how we can get more effect from all the electricity that comes from our intermittent power production. It is more than 60 measures that we have already decided on.
Linus Lakso (MP)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Minister for Energy Ebba Busch!
Yes, one can make different assessments, but I do not feel entirely reassured by the answer, which I just demonstrated with actual figures. Regarding the expansion rate in recent years, we have a strongly declining trend. We actually risk moving from the large electricity surplus that we built up during our time in government to a power deficit if demand increases but the expansion rate continues to decrease.
Then I want to draw the Minister for Energy's attention to the fact that between perhaps 2035 and 2045, as much as ten terawatt per year could fall away because the age limit is reached. Therefore, we really need to increase the expansion rate when it comes to power production in the coming years, and we need to be able to maintain the pace all the way until 2045 if we are to manage the electrification.
One must also return to: What is the purpose of this electrification? Why do we want more fossil-free electricity? Well, it is about phasing out fossil fuels, and there this government perhaps has the biggest homework to do. The use of fossil fuels is increasing, in fact. You tax, as stated, a kilowatt-hour of fossil-free electricity more than a kilowatt-hour of fossil diesel. Withdrawn subsidies for electric car sales, for example, have resulted in 10 percentage points fewer electric cars being sold. Emissions from new cars are increasing for the first time in very many years, and very many projects within the green industry have pulled the handbrake because of the government's failed policy.
Since it is again very surprising that one cannot give an answer as to how much effect the government's policy will have given the high tone. That question therefore remains unanswered.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for this interpellation.
I have heard everything that Member Lakso has said, also here at the end, despite my "multitasking". I can only confirm. I agree. I look forward to being able to return with forecasts on how much this improves the situation and also to being able to have a dialogue.
What are we agreeing on then? I perceive that we are not in agreement on any matters. The first concerns the view on whether it is technology-neutral to adhere to the capacity factor, i.e., how much available electricity there is at any given time, with or without one, so to speak, coupling one's power production with other storage. I am thinking of the total cost for that. Is it technology-neutral to treat all types of power equally but based on what they can deliver to the system? The second concerns: Shall we participate in the international race for new base load in the form of nuclear power - because it is needed for the green transition, because it is needed for competitiveness, and because it is needed in the digitalization? AI is now rolling out massively. Energy was a huge issue during the world's largest technology fair, CES, last week in the USA, for example. The last concerns: Shall the state cover the connection fee for a single type of power, for offshore wind power?
Otherwise, I hear that we agree on very much, and I think it is good that one can highlight that regarding the investment climate. I look forward to returning with more regarding Kraftlyftet, and I thank you for the interpellation.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.