Response to interpellation 2024/25:293 on the future of offshore wind power

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! Linus Lakso has asked me if I will reassess the decision to stop the assignment to Svenska kraftnät to expand connection points at sea, if I will take initiative for any other type of support for offshore wind power, if I in other respects can accept that no offshore wind power will be built in Sweden during the next ten years, and how I intend to act to meet the industry's needs for electricity by 2030 and 2035. He has thus posed a number of questions.

I want to begin by emphasizing the following: It was indeed the government's decision to no longer require Svenska kraftnät to build offshore lines, but it was also Svenska kraftnät's assessment that doing so would contravene the EU's state aid rules.

Linus Lakso knows that 10 gigawatts of new offshore wind power only enables the connection of 1.8 gigawatts of new electricity consumption while maintaining resource sufficiency. In the energy policy orientation proposition, the government writes that wind power can account for the majority of incoming electricity production in the short term, but that wind power needs to contribute to a greater extent with capacities for a secure electricity system. The government has therefore primarily focused on strengthening the contribution of wind power and solar power to a more robust electricity system and on ensuring that more electricity consumption can be connected.

The government gave the Swedish Energy Agency, Svenska kraftnät and Energimarknadsinspektionen two joint assignments on December 12 last year aimed at exactly this. One assignment focuses on technical requirements and the other on incentives. Wind power shall therefore contribute more but also be paid for it.

The Government has also in the budget bill for 2025 announced several measures to increase the acceptance of wind power through strengthened incentives for municipal approval and through increased direct local benefit. This applies to both land-based and coastal wind power. It is also this wind power that is cheapest to build and which can be produced most quickly.

The Government is keen on more fossil-free electricity production being established quickly. In the last two years alone, electricity production appears to have increased by 6,100 megawatts, primarily in the form of solar and wind power. By 2030, it is only land-based wind power and combined heat and power that can be expected to be added and contribute to more electricity use being connected. Solar power is being expanded rapidly but currently contributes practically nothing to any new electricity use being connected, regardless of how much capacity is installed.

The government is working to increase electricity production in Sweden and, in particular, to increase the possibilities to use the electricity production that already exists more efficiently. That the electricity production that is added can also enable new electricity customers is crucial for a well-functioning electricity market and a cost-effective expansion of the electricity system. Whether this ultimately proves to be sufficient to carry out the entire energy transition, the future will show. Linus Lakso can, however, feel secure that the government prioritizes the industry's access to cheap electricity, at any time of the year, very highly.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Ebba Busch for the answer.

Ebba Busch pointed out that fossil-free electricity production has increased by 6 gigawatts in recent years. Let us look a little at the history.

Recently, KD ruled that Sweden was dependent on imports of, among other things, German and Polish coal power, but thanks to eight years of powerful red-green energy policy, Sweden had the largest electricity surplus in Europe in 2022 and a historically high expansion rate. Since Ebba Busch took the helm, the expansion rate has weighed down significantly – it has gone from 2 gigawatts in 2022 to 1 gigawatt this year and is expected to go down to half a gigawatt. This corresponds to a reduction of 75 percent during the parliamentary term. This does not make me feel secure at all that we will have a sufficient electricity supply moving forward.

One of the first decisions the government took was to stop Svenska kraftnät's assignment to build connection points for the offshore wind power. This received harsh criticism from both experts and companies, who stated that offshore wind is crucial in order to provide cheap electricity by 2030 and 2035. Energy research has shown that electricity prices could be lowered by up to 50 percent in electricity area 4, which is located in southern Sweden, with an expansion of offshore wind power of three and a half gigawatts.

The Minister for Energy has claimed that offshore wind power will be expanded anyway, without the state being responsible for expanding the offshore grid, but the reality shows the opposite. Vattenfall chose to pause one of its most mature projects, Kriegers flak, which could already before 2030 deliver electricity equivalent to 20 percent of Skåne's electricity needs. Even Skåne's power commission, which is led by the Moderaterna, has said that this is incredibly crucial for southern Sweden's electricity supply. Vattenfall has also flagged that the same decision – for the same reason – could be made for the planned park Kattegatt Syd.

Furthermore, very clear messages come from the government's own investigator for a new allocation system for offshore wind power, who writes as follows:

Our proposals do not in themselves, whether regarding the auction system or regarding rule simplifications for existing projects, lead to any expanded expansion of offshore wind power. This is because market conditions are currently lacking. The expansion supported by the auction system will at the earliest be able to take place during the second half of the 2030s. In other words, the auction system is not about solving the need for quickly expanded electricity production in the short term. Existing projects are the only possibility for offshore wind power to contribute with additional production around the year 2030.

It is against this background that I ask Ebba Busch if she is satisfied that it does not look like there will be any offshore wind power in the foreseeable future. It must be some kind of record in passivity to answer that we have to wait and see if this is sufficient for the energy transition. It sounds more like a mañanaminister than an Energy and Business Minister. I want to give Ebba Busch the chance to change her mind and therefore ask again: Is Ebba Busch satisfied that no offshore wind power will be built in the next ten years? Is it really the message of waiting and seeing that households and companies want?

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Linus Lakso for the interpellation and Ebba Busch for the answer.

Sweden is facing an economic headwind. Unemployment is rising, investments are decreasing, and the government's passivity is causing Swedish industry to fall behind.

We Social Democrats know that growth does not arise by itself. It requires investments, long-term decisions, and a policy that dares to invest in the future. But what do we see in Sweden today? Yes, a government that stops the industry's electrification by blocking wind power and that has no strategy for how Sweden should attract investments. We also see how the Christian Democrats' party friends in the municipalities are doing exactly the same thing as the government is doing here in Stockholm: stopping growth, stopping jobs, and stopping the future.

In my constituency on Öckerö, we see exactly this. There, the bourgeois municipal leadership, led by Ebba Busch's party comrade, says no to Västvind, a project that can deliver 5.5 terawatt-hours of fossil-free electricity, create hundreds of jobs, and bring in billion-dollar investments to Western Sweden. This project sees Gothenburg Harbor and Volvo Cars as a key in its electrification. But instead of enabling these investments, the right says no. Instead of strengthening Sweden's competitiveness, they block it.

The right-wing parties talk about how Sweden needs more electricity but still say no to project after project that could provide more electricity here and now, not in 10–15 years. The government says that it wants investments but scares away companies with an unrealistic energy policy. The government says that it wants a strong work line but stops the jobs that could have been created.

Madam Speaker! This is about a major issue. What happens when one does not have a functioning growth policy? That is what we see in Sweden now. We see unemployment rising, investments lagging behind, and a tax growth that is not really gaining momentum.

The difference between us Social Democrats and the government is that we know that Swedish growth is built on three things: investments, innovation, and industrial development. We know that an energy policy is required that is pragmatic, not nuclear-power dogmatic. Let us be honest. Ebba Busch's fervor for nuclear power and strong opposition to wind power – or "steel forests," as the government parties called it during the election campaign – may be the greatest obstacle to Sweden's growth.

How is Sweden to manage the transition, produce more electricity, and secure the investments required for strong job growth? The business community is clear. They want more fossil-free electricity in the near term, continued competitive electricity prices, and clear rules of the game. Västvind could have been part of the solution, but Ebba Busch's party comrades in Öckerö choose to put a stop to it.

Ebba Busch! What happened to the bourgeoisie that saw growth as something important? Does offshore wind power have any future in Ebba Busch's Sweden? New nuclear power, if at best in 10–15 years, does not secure any investments, creates no jobs, and gives us no growth here and now.

Madam Speaker! What we are seeing now is not growth policy, and it is Swedish labor, Swedish companies and Swedish households that are paying the price.

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I also thank Linus Lakso and the Minister.

On March 6, Öckerö municipality plans to make a decision in the council regarding the environmental assessment of the Västvind wind farm. I have understood that the board, led by Kristdemokraterna and Moderaterna, is leaning towards a no. At the same time, the region, the county administrative board, the automotive industry, the chamber of commerce, LO, Svenskt Näringsliv, the chemical companies, Göteborgsregionen, Göteborgs Hamn, and several others are saying with all desirable clarity that much more electricity is needed here and now.

Western Sweden produces less than a third of the electricity consumed there today. At the same time, a large amount of oil and gas is imported. Gothenburg's needs are met to 90 percent by imports, and in Västra Götaland the figure is 75 percent. The need is therefore enormous. Västvind would only occupy 2 per mille of the area of the Skagerrak and Kattegat but produce up to four and a half terawatt-hours, a volume that would be of great use. The investments are at 30–35 billion.

Öckerö Municipality's likely decision to block Västvind will affect jobs, industry, electrification, climate, electricity prices and so on in Western Sweden. To cover its entire need, Western Sweden needs to increase production through 5 offshore wind farms or 15 smaller so-called SMR nuclear reactors. The latter, however, are too far ahead in time.

The now estimated increase in electricity demand in Western Sweden applies until 2045. Given the industrial transition and the need I have outlined, two to three wind farms are needed as soon as possible, and right now Västvind is the most realistic alternative to get at least one wind farm in place quickly.

We Social Democrats have long pushed for increased electricity production. The goal is 60 terawatt-hours by 2030, and now work is required to get this in place. In Western Sweden alone, an additional 15 terawatt-hours were needed by 2030.

What does the Minister think about the fact that her party colleagues on Öckerö seem to be blocking the enormously important Västvind wind farm? Does the Minister have any thoughts on how we can achieve a decision that goes in the right direction so that the jobs, the green transition, and the industry are secured?

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! I requested the floor because the Minister for Enterprise, at the end of her response to Linus Lakso, mentioned that she prioritizes the industry's access to electricity very highly. However, I did not hear in the response how this is to be done.

The heart of the Swedish chemical industry lies in Stenungsund on the west coast. More than 2,500 jobs today depend on a transition to fossil-free energy. By 2030 or possibly some year later, 5, or perhaps 15, new terawatt-hours need to be in place. Shall this be addressed through gas turbines, which have been on the table, or through offshore wind farms?

Those are the two realistic alternatives that exist right now, because we have not seen the land-based wind power that Ebba Busch refers to in any significant extent, especially not on the west coast. In that case, the Minister must have something else up his sleeve or knowledge of what is to generate electricity.

In order for the chemical industry that we have on the west coast, which is world-leading in its segments, to be able to take further steps, it needs to be supplied with fossil-free energy and fossil-free raw materials in various ways. Then the large oil dependency that the industry has can be phased out. In order for it to be competitive, there need to be political proposals on how it should be done and how we are to secure the chemical industry that is important for the whole country.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! In Sudan, approximately 24 million people are in acute need of food. 1.5 million people are estimated to be on the brink of famine.

In Sweden, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency assesses that we waste food equivalent to 16 kilos per person per year – food that would have been perfectly fit to eat – from households alone. But what helps Sudan and the starving population there when Sweden throws away thousands of tons of edible food – 16 kilos per person? We are therefore left with a huge food surplus in Sweden that does not help anyone where it is needed, when it is needed.

I realize that it may be perceived as a somewhat brutal comparison to compare food surpluses and famine in Sudan with the situation we have in Sweden, but it is as if basic physics does not work at all for some members of the opposition. It is starting to become numbing and tiresome.

Boasting that we have an electricity surplus in Sweden that goes towards export when the wind blows and when the sun shines is the same as me saying: One cannot claim that we have problems with famine in the world, because we throw away a huge amount of food in Sweden.

It is precisely the same situation and the same lack of logic in the area of hunger as in the area of electricity, that is to say that there can be two truths at the same time. Yes, we have an electricity surplus. Yes, we have Europe's worst power shortage.

It is the very definition of madness to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result. For me, this applies to concrete politics. We have a power shortage in Sweden, but not because we have a shortage of electricity. We have a surplus – that is a fact that we completely agree on. Why then? Well, because different types of power have different capacities.

I represent a government that stands for technology neutrality, but I want electricity that is connectable for my industries. We need more wind power. It can help to push down the price, not least in southern Sweden. But very low prices also mean that the investment calculations for the wind power collapse. That is exactly what is happening now, and it is not about the government's policy.

I wonder if Lakso knows how much electricity is available for the connection of new industry if we build the offshore wind power. That the installed capacity is 10 gigawatts is not the same thing as there being available for connection of new industry.

When it comes to the chemical companies on the west coast, one must be aware that companies such as Perstorp, Borealis, Nouryon, Ineos Inovyn and Adesso Bioproducts need to have electricity available every day. Many of them need it 24/7, 365 days a year, and it cannot be weather-dependent. This is what effectively lowers Sweden's competitiveness. However, it can be balanced with hydrogen, and it can be balanced with storage. This is something I am prepared to pay a lot of money for.

I am, however, not prepared to pay for something that exacerbates the power shortage and results in us getting more electricity that goes to export to Denmark but which is not connectable for new companies in Sweden.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! The answer shows with all desired clarity that our Minister for Energy has zero grasp of the laws of physics and how an electricity system actually functions.

First and foremost, Sweden absolutely does not have Europe's largest power shortage. Rather, we have Europe's largest power surplus. Ebba Busch is perhaps referring to SE4, where there is a local production deficit. That is precisely why we need more production in southern Sweden, for example, offshore wind power.

The only thing Ebba Busch is right about, Madam Speaker, is that we need different capabilities. What offshore wind, and even more so onshore wind power, can deliver to the electricity system is large amounts of cheap electricity.

The fundamental problem here and the reason why Ebba Busch refers to what she terms resource sufficiency is that Ebba Busch and the government totally lack a realistic policy for effect. We need, in fact, to complement weather-dependent energy sources with dispatchable power.

Miljöpartiet has proposed a goal of 10 gigawatts of dispatchable power by 2030, but the government has absolutely no goal and no own assessment of how much capacity in the form of dispatchable power and flexibility is actually needed. It is this that can enable more renewables in the short term. Ebba Busch referred to this herself and also underlined that it stands in the government's proposition that it is this that can deliver energy in the short term.

One is completely stunned by the answer when the obvious shortcomings lie in the government's own energy policy.

As said, the expansion rate has, or will have, decreased by 75 percent during Ebba Busch's time as energy minister. Sweden is heading towards an electricity shortage. Yes, we have an electricity surplus today. What is also missing is getting the electrification of the industrial and transport sectors moving. It is the government's great failure. The whole point of us building out more fossil-free electricity, regardless of power source, is that we want to phase out fossil energy, and there the government fails completely.

The use of fossil fuels is increasing within the transport sector. We see that project after project is paused or pushed into the future. Volvo is pushing back its plans for electrification. Hybrit is pushed into the future. Several large projects to produce, for example, e-fuels in Sweden have moved abroad.

It is, therefore, a frightening development regarding both maintaining a green industrial development in Sweden and delivering more renewable energy. I hear no realistic answers from Ebba Busch on how it is to be done. On the contrary, the expansion of all offshore wind is now being stopped in reality, either through a lack of politics or by the Kristdemokraterna using the municipal veto locally.

I simply do not understand how the government intends to deliver when it comes to industrial policy or getting the energy expansion done.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for the answers we received!

I do, however, become a bit thoughtful. Is it the case that the minister does not see how crucial Västvind actually is for Western Sweden? It is clear that we need much more production, but when we have a project that is so close and that could be started quickly, I become concerned if the minister does not see that it is a problem if these 50 offshore wind turbines do not come to fruition.

The entire business community and all the municipalities on the west coast – except obviously the municipal leadership in Öckerö – see how important this is. I think it might not be so difficult for the minister to make a really good effort here through a telephone call. I hope that the minister does what she can until March 6 to ensure that we, despite everything, receive a positive decision from Öckerö municipality.

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!

It is of course true that the situation in Sudan is incredibly serious. That we have a surplus of electricity and deliver electricity abroad is also correct, but we also have great needs here and now. Then one can wonder why we need to expand Swedish power production so quickly. Well, it is because it is about the jobs.

What we are talking about is also the situation in Western Sweden, and this is not something that only we Social Democrats are saying. In an article in Göteborgs-Posten, Västra Götalandsregionen, Business Region Göteborg, and Västsvenska Handelskammaren emphasize that if we do not get this offshore wind power and expanded electricity production on-site by 2030, 25,000 jobs are at risk by that year and, in the long term, 70,000 jobs in Western Sweden. It is clear that the situation then becomes very serious.

Regarding this claim that I have heard several times, I have had debates with the Minister earlier about energy policy and the issue of technology neutrality. I mean, Madam Speaker, that it is technology-neutral to, for example, take the connection costs for the offshore wind farms.

We saw that when Krieger's barges did not arrive, that project was shut down. I believe there is a risk that this will have a domino effect on other offshore wind farms. Back to technology neutrality: One took the connection costs when we expanded onshore wind power, nuclear power, and so on. If one is to have technology neutrality, one should reasonably take that cost for offshore wind power as well so that we get this in place faster.

My questions remain, as I did not feel I received any answer. How does the Minister view the fact that the party comrades on Öckerö lean towards saying no to the offshore wind farm, which is so important for Western Sweden? And does the Minister have any thoughts on how to compensate for this if it does not get established?

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! The Minister did indeed almost touch upon the aid policy. But that, Madam Speaker, is a somewhat different debate.

Then I thought that perhaps it was about biogas. Food waste can also generate it. But it wasn't quite that either.

The Minister did, in any case, provide a statement here. I thought it was news that the Minister is willing to pay for effect.

If a wind farm is to achieve long-term stable economic sustainability, it can be combined with energy storage, with turbines or hydrogen. It is clear that someone must pay for it. Today, the industry pays quite large sums in bottleneck fees due to transmission shortages.

Society, the government, and industry can also agree on what is seen as possible by 2033 to ensure power capacity for the West Swedish industry. That is what the industry is standing and waiting for. They want to make necessary investments, and for that, they need to see that the policy is a bit more forward-looking. But as we hear here from my fellow debaters, the Christian Democrats on Öckerö are not particularly accommodating in this matter, so goodwill must come from somewhere else. Perhaps the Minister has something in their back pocket – we shall see.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! This government will not remove the right to a municipal veto. We have no intention of overriding municipalities that absolutely do not want wind power. We believe that it will be bad.

On the other hand, we are doing what the red-greens failed to do in government last time. We are allocating more resources to the county administrative boards to be able to handle wind power decisions faster. We have allocated more resources at the Government Offices to be able to handle wind power decisions. Instead of handling only one wind power decision in eight years, we have now handled very many with some yes and some no to offshore wind power from the government's side.

We have now reached the bottom of the question regarding the Armed Forces' interests. Instead of pushing out that matter case by case, we spent several months going through all classified and security-cleared material in detail in order to be able to see where the Armed Forces can allow more wind power.

Something we also do is to change the open-door policy that has made it possible to spend millions on application processes without knowing where it is even productive to try to submit an application. Among comparable countries, Sweden is among the last to leave this system, but we are doing it thanks to this government and not under the red-green government.

We are also addressing the issue that the red-green government never managed to do during eight years – that of increasing the economic incentives to say yes to wind power locally. In eight years, they did not succeed with that, but now we have made a decision on this and will implement it during this year.

The chance of getting a yes goes down by 11 percent if Miljöpartiet is part of a coalition, one of the underlying documents shows. We say yes and we say no with different parties in different places. That is done by both Kristdemokrater, Moderater and Sverigedemokrater and Socialdemokrater, Vänsterpartister and Miljöpartister. We do not intend to change that, but we intend to change in another way.

When it comes to technology neutrality, I actually want to know if Joakim Järrebring, Mattias Jonsson and Lakso know how much connectable electricity will be supplied if these offshore wind farms are established. Do you have any idea, between your thumb and forefinger, of what is available? Can you call up Perstorp and say: If we get this wind farm in place, you will have this much available electricity?

Industries involved in chemistry are not an activity that can be switched on and off. It is therefore incredibly important that electricity is available where it is needed, when it is needed. That is why I am obsessed with talking about power balance, about connectable electricity, not just more electricity in general that disappears somewhere. You are responsible for that. Do you have any idea how much more industry and how many more companies can connect?

This is the Swedish Parliament's chamber, Madam Speaker. I am being thrown the claim "zero clue" in the face from Lakso when I refer to Entsoe's Winter Outlook, which states that we have one of the worst power shortages. I do not think that is serious. I do not think it is respectful.

Let's push and pull! Does Lakso have any other facts?

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! The figure Ebba Busch is looking for, regarding what she previously called capacity factor and now calls resource sufficiency, is 18 percent. This only shows that Ebba Busch does not understand how an electricity system works.

I believe that Ebba Busch needs to travel around and be out in reality to see what is happening in Sweden. Visit, for example, Juktan's pumped-storage power plant outside Storuman, which has 315 megawatts of controllable power. Visit Göteborg Energi's gas turbines, which stand ready to deliver power when needed. Why not visit the heat storage in the rock cavern in Västerås or look at some of the batteries equivalent to 1 gigawatt that have been installed in recent years? These are technologies that already exist today.

To merely refer to the availability factor for an individual power source is totally misleading. That is not how you build an energy system. What we need to do now is to ensure that we both bring in a lot of – cheap – electricity and bring in enough dispatchable power. When it comes to this, the government fails completely. That is why we actually stand with a continued large surplus, according to the forecast. We do not see the green industrial transition happening at the pace it would need to happen.

To refer to a large surplus that we cannot use is – again – simply a failure. It is also due to a failed industrial policy. We do not have the right conditions for Swedish industry to invest and benefit from the relatively cheap electricity we actually have.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! A dear child has many names. I try, however, to stick to what Svenska kraftnät and international TSOs use, and it is capacity factor. Sometimes it is also called power factor.

It is not I who have made up these figures. The figures are 11 percent for land-based wind power, 18 for offshore wind power, 74 for nuclear power and 84 percent for our fantastic hydropower.

I have a firm grasp on how to build an electricity system from a political perspective. I mean that Lakso has just admitted that we cannot build a Swedish, green, competitive transition that provides economic growth and jobs solely on weather-dependent power production. He has just admitted that it is 1.8 gigawatts that are available, not the 10 gigawatts that is spoken about. It is also assumed that other types of power and other measures will solve a type of power that comes and goes.

With that said, it fulfills other functions in the system. The Government will therefore take all the measures that the red-green government failed to manage to pave the way for new land-based and offshore wind power.

However, it cannot just be more electricity. It is about 60 measures which, among other things, aim to extract more power, available electricity, where and when it is needed. This includes, among other things, providing incentives if one, as a project in Stenungsund, looks at synchronizing their wind power production with hydrogen production and with other types of storage. This will receive more incentives going forward. When it comes to this, I am happy to make deals with both the Green Party and the Social Democrats, because it is needed for Sweden's best. We have gone from 10 percent inflation to 2 percent during this government. We are making the largest investment in research and innovation ever in Sweden's history, and we are laying the largest infrastructure budget ever in Sweden's history, with 200 billion in additional funding. It is good for Sweden. It builds competitiveness.

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

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