Response to interpellation 2024/25:425 on plans for a new cable to Denmark
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns plans for a new cable to Denmark and how the electricity system should be designed. KD considers that the government should be tough towards Germany 1 and that Svenska kraftnät should not lend itself to climate activism 1. KD wants a single electricity price in Sweden through more efficient cables and more base power 2, where nuclear power is combined with economic growth 2. KD argues that increased transmission to a high-price area is socio-economically negative 1 and that Sweden should not build more cables if it wants a Swedish price 3. KD emphasizes that low electricity prices are needed to avoid social and health-related problems 4. KD argues that climate measures are not to the benefit of the Swedish people 3. KD argues that it is necessary to export electricity surpluses but also that there is a power shortage 5. KD argues that volatile electricity prices pose a threat to Sweden's position for long-term industrial investments 4. KD argues that low electricity prices must come before climate goals because climate measures at the expense of energy prices risk making people poor or leading to deaths 4. KD argues that Sweden is moving from an energy policy focused on what the system consists of to what the system should deliver 6. KD argues that the focus on delivery has previously led to power shortages and harmful electricity price changes 6. KD argues that the goal is a robust and secure delivery system with stable prices that serves the Swedish people 6. KD argues that the business community prefers a stable higher price level over sharp price variations 6.
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 President! Elsa Widding has asked me if I intend to take any general initiatives in light of the fact that Svenska kraftnät wants to build a new cable to Denmark, whether the government and I can imagine putting pressure on German energy policy and how that would be done in that case, and whether I can explain the reasons why the government does not use the same reasoning for the cable to Denmark as for the cable to Germany.
I want to start by answering the second question, regarding German energy policy. My government and I take every given opportunity to point out that the German lack of division into electricity zones has negative effects also for Germany's neighboring countries. Government representatives have conveyed this in talks with German counterparts, and I have conveyed it at EU council meetings. These are also views that my officials present in various contexts where energy market issues are discussed within the EU.
When it comes to the upgrade of the Konti-Skankabel to Denmark, it is a project driven by Affärsverket svenska kraftnät – which in the debates is often abbreviated as SVK. The application for a grid concession should, in due time, land on the government's desk. The government will then make a decision regarding whether the line shall be built or not, just as was the case regarding Hansa Powerbridge to Germany and Aurora Line to Finland. I will not precede the government's review by reasoning about the conditions for this line here.
Elsa Widding (-)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. It is very good that the government dares to be a bit tough towards the Germans regarding the new cable to Germany. It is actually quite understandable that one wants the same price in the whole country – even if it affects us negatively.
I would like to say that the price differences we have between northern and southern Sweden today are not good. It is rather quite incomprehensible that the government allows exactly the same product to be sold for completely different prices in different parts of the country. However, that is a completely different discussion, so we will not take that here today. Today we are going to talk about my concern that the government may come to listen a little too much to Svenska kraftnät when it comes to a new planned cable to Denmark.
SVK's task is the transmission of electricity, system responsibility, planning and development of the electricity grid, market services and international cooperation in the electricity grid area – that is, to make the transmissions work as well as possible. As far as I can understand, Svenska kraftnät has no responsibility for the climate goals being met, and definitely not for the climate goals being met at a European level.
Still, it is written in a press release that a strong integration between Europe's electricity systems is a prerequisite for us to be able to reach the EU's climate goals of increasing the share of renewable electricity production and reducing the need for fossil-based production. I really hope that they do not justify this cable by saying that the EU shall reach its climate goals. Obviously, SVK must stick to its mandate and not lend itself to climate activism. SVK also claims that the cable to Denmark is socio-economically positive. One can then ask: Where is the basis for this claim? That it should be a collective assessment obviously does not suffice as an answer.
Through model simulations, we know that an area with an abundant supply of hydropower will experience higher electricity prices and electricity price volatility if it is integrated with an area that does not have access to flexible and cheap balancing power. Denmark has neither flexible nor cheap balancing power, but on the other hand, it has Europe's highest electricity prices.
Increased transfer to a high-price area obviously means increased electricity prices for the low-price area. It is therefore socio-economically negative – 180 degrees wrong. The chemical industries believe that Svenska kraftnät should receive a new instruction which means that they explicitly take into account Swedish interests and the industry's competitiveness – nothing else. I am truly prepared to agree.
Today, it almost seems as if Svenska kraftnät is looking more toward European interests than Swedish ones. So forget that about the EU's climate goals – it should be overplayed. Why not back down on the climate goals and correct for what a number of confused individuals and politicians, who unfortunately had to represent Sweden in the climate negotiations, agreed to?
Wasn't Sweden already carbon neutral ten years ago, if one looks at uptake from forest and land? We emitted 53 million tons of carbon dioxide, while the forest and land took up 55, and 53 minus 55 is minus 2. To that, we can add all electricity exports to, among others, Germany, which makes it an even larger minus.
To then talk about fossil-free – or even worse, that Sweden within the framework of Fit for 55 shall agree to further increase the enormous uptake that we already have from forests, and which made us carbon neutral already ten years ago – is even more world-detached. It is based on a total lack of impact analysis for our own country. The parties and politicians who have negotiated with the EU regarding the climate goals must now be scrutinized, and we must ask ourselves whose interests they actually represent.
In Norway, several parties agree that the country should not renew the Skagerrak 1 and 2 cables, which connect southern Norway and northern Denmark, when they expire in 2026 and 2027. I hope that the government has the same attitude towards this Denmark cable.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! We have a challenge in Sweden in that we have a huge surplus in electricity production. We produce enormous amounts of electricity in parts, but we do not have enough electricity where it is needed and when it is needed. We have recurring power problems, not least in the winter, and we have an imbalance between the power grid and production.
In northern Sweden, as Elsa Widding is well aware of, there is plenty of production. There is hydropower and wind power, but there is a shortage of grid. In southern Sweden, there is quite good grid, but production and base load are lacking. This also affects how well we utilize the grids we de facto have. This means that we have set records in electricity exports and at the same time are also in need of importing, not least during particularly challenging periods during the year.
The work the government has done so far in reorienting the unrealistic energy policy that was previously pursued takes time. It takes generations to reverse this. It is not possible in a single stroke to restore the large amounts of base load that disappeared from the system when, for example, several nuclear reactors were decommissioned prematurely.
Despite this, the work we have done so far has already had an effect. Electricity prices have decreased every year that this government has been in power. In 2024 – last year, that is – we had the lowest prices in four years.
Regarding what is the subject of the discussion today, we can state overall that we have a need to be able to export our surplus, but we cannot say that we would therefore be able to manage without interconnections with the rest of the system, as we also have a power shortage. That being said, regarding just this connection to Denmark, I will not precede the assessment that takes place according to the order we have in Sweden.
Elsa Widding (-)
Madam Speaker! What the Minister describes means that we are not to build more wind power and that we should be very cautious about expanding cables. That is absolutely the conclusion of what the Minister says.
Sweden must export at least 70 percent of the cable's capacity every minute, otherwise we will get the price that applies on the other side. It is when we succeed in filling the cables that we get a Swedish price. Therefore, we cannot build more cables if we want a Swedish price and not the contagion effect from other countries. If we build more cables, there will be more power that can go out at a higher price, provided that the price is higher on the other side.
I would like to take up the development of the electricity sector here, which is being led by two rather destructive goals.
We all know how it goes with the green madness in the north, where businesses are sanctioned by reckless and easily deceived politicians. No climate crisis exists, according to the IPCC's scientific basis, but nevertheless, this government and the previous government stand at the forefront to let the financial elite earn the big haul on climate fear while the taxpayers become poorer and the pension money goes up in smoke.
I hope that the Minister understands why I am raising this. The first goal, therefore, concerns the misconception that Sweden, which accounts for one thousandth of the world's emissions and has furthermore reduced its emissions by 69 percent since 1970, can influence the climate and the global temperature in any direction through further emission reductions while China is flooring it and will not reduce its emissions until after 2050. We also know that the USA is ignoring the Paris Agreement. Europe will therefore soon be left alone with its climate hysteria, which has catastrophic consequences for its own population.
The second goal that Sweden has fixated on concerns the rapid electrification of the transport sector. These two goals are in no way to the benefit of the Swedish people, but if climate measures are prioritized highly, it is close at hand to argue that countries with good access to renewable energy sources should support countries with more limited access. Particularly valuable in this context is hydropower, which we have continued to have in very abundance.
If great importance is attached to a rapid electrification of the transport sector, it is correspondingly close at hand to argue for more electricity production. Electricity production is stimulated if electricity prices go up, so from that perspective, it is very good that we get German prices in Sweden and not Swedish ones. How does the Minister view this? Is it good or bad to have high prices in Sweden? If we want to reach the climate goals, we want high prices.
Both of these goals can lead to the conclusion that Sweden should build more submarine cables and then particularly to the south, towards Poland, Germany and Denmark, as well as to the east, towards the Baltics. Perhaps that is how Svenska kraftnät intends. It is extremely important here that the government analyzes the consequences of the high electricity prices and, above all, of the large fluctuations in electricity prices.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam President! I want to be straight: I will not engage in a climate debate here. I do not believe it will be constructive.
Our basic position is that it is possible to combine reduced emissions with increased competitiveness, more economic growth, and more jobs if it is done in the right way. There, I believe it is positive to stick to the overall, clear goals and then work in the EU for less of what is called micromanagement, that is to say, fewer and very tightly detail-controlled sub-goals. The important thing is that the countries are on the right path in the long term.
What is the remedy for the miserable situation we have now? We have large differences in price depending on where in the country one lives. It is not fictional but is, among other things, due to very real bottlenecks. We are, however, clear that we want to move to a single electricity price area; we want it to be possible to have a single electricity price in Sweden, regardless of where one lives. This, however, is based on us actually building more efficient and better cables. But above all, that which flows through the cables needs to come from more base power in the system, quite simply.
It is also the remedy against us being so heavily influenced by the rest of the outside world. It is not possible to shield oneself and cut all cables to all other countries. It would theoretically be difficult to do that if one has a power shortage, which I know Elsa Widding is very aware that we have. The recipe for a more independent power system where we are not as influenced by others is, therefore, more base power.
However, more power cannot be extracted from a troll strike. We have decided on nearly 70 measures that improve the situation in the short term, but there is no simple quick fix for the problem that we have a shortage of electricity at certain hours and days of the year. In those cases, we also need to be able to import.
The second way to improve the situation, in addition to us taking our own responsibility, is that we enable other countries to take responsibility. Therefore, I am very pleased that a nuclear alliance was formed during the Swedish EU Presidency. Now, 16 of the 27 member states within the European Union are active members of the nuclear alliance, and several that remain neutral still view it very positively that other countries build nuclear power, as they see that it is good for the system as a whole. That is what we will continue to push for.
I am pleased that several of the large industrial projects continue to proceed throughout Sweden, that is to say, not only in northern Sweden. This applies in particular to Skåne, where I was last week. I was in Malmö, Kristianstad, and Karlskrona and inaugurated several large and important initiatives, not least for a better and more robust energy system. The repurchasing of Öresundsverket is a concrete example of the result of the government's work, and there will be more ahead.
Elsa Widding (-)
Madam President! That sounds great, Minister! Then we count on the fact that there will be no new cables.
It is also very good to open Öresundsverket, and it would of course be even better if one could also open Stenungsund. The large electricity dependence of Swedish households means that the price must of course be low in order for us to avoid economic, social, and health-related problems.
The Minister speaks very warmly about the EU, but I do not believe that the EU's leaders truly understand or care about our situation and our great need for electricity in Sweden. I know that I talk a lot about this with the climate, but through a long series of studies we know that ten times as many people are killed by cold as by heat in Europe. One must understand that we actually need to have low electricity prices. Every year 220,000 people die in Europe due to cold, primarily because of low indoor temperatures. It is a reason why it is so important that people can afford to heat their homes – and that everyone can afford to heat their homes, even those who are not as well-off.
What I mean is that low electricity prices must come first – and long before the trivial climate goals, which play no role at all for the climate. If we try to fight climate change at the expense of low energy prices, we are biting ourselves hard in the tail, and more will die or alternatively become very poor. It cannot be ignored. It is high time that the government understands the connection and truly takes responsibility.
You are doing very much well today, Minister, but even more is needed. Start by clearly distancing yourself from the agenda-driven Ursula von der Leyen, who is trying to save the climate through renewables! It will not happen.
Swedish electricity prices have been very volatile during the past year and constitute a clear threat to Sweden's position as a leading country for long-term industrial investments.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! There is much that Elsa Widding and I do not agree on, but I would like to begin by thanking her for an interpellation with very straightforward and concrete questions.
I have tried to give straight answers about how the process works when deciding on a new cable to a country or, as is primarily the case here, updating an existing cable between two countries to a modern and new cable. I want to be clear that I will, therefore, not judge based on this. That is not the order we have in Sweden, and we will have to return to that if and when it lands on the government's desk.
We are, however, in agreement that it is good that Sweden is now moving away from an energy policy that focused very much on what the system should consist of – that it should be so or so much wind power, that it should not be nuclear power or that it should only be nuclear power – to what the system should deliver. What is the system there to serve?
We can observe that when we have not focused on this, it has resulted in a lack of effectiveness. It has given us an electricity surplus on certain days, but it has not given us enough electricity when and where it was needed. It has given us a rollercoaster of electricity prices, and that is very harmful. It makes it difficult to invest in new power production, and it makes it difficult for almost all companies to know which electricity prices they should calculate on.
Our goal is to obtain a system that is robust and secure in its delivery, and that is capable of delivering as much electricity as we know will be demanded in the future. We also strive for prices to become stable. The business community says that one would rather accept a slightly higher price level, if one knows that it remains stable, than for it to suddenly be down in the negatives and then sometimes shoot upwards by several kronor. That was the system Sweden had before.
That is what happens when one focuses on what the system should deliver instead of what it should consist of. There will be more of such measures in the future. It shall first and foremost serve the Swedish people and not any other interests.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.