Response to interpellation 2024/25:49 on energy supply in Western Sweden
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD considers that Sweden needs to plan for an electricity demand of at least 300 terawatt-hours in the year 2045 and that all fossil-free power sources are necessary to meet the climate goals 1. KD emphasizes that the government is investing in the power shortage through Kraftlyftet and support to municipalities for wind power 1. KD argues that the challenge lies in power capacity rather than just production 2 and that the focus must be on getting more power capacity into the system to be able to connect new companies and industries 2. KD wants to use economic incentives to reward power sources that deliver stability and power capacity 2. S considers that the uncertainty in the energy supply threatens jobs and investments in Western Sweden. S considers that the government should task Svenska kraftnät with taking the connection costs for offshore wind power.
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! Mattias Jonsson has asked me how I intend to act to ensure that we obtain energy production that meets the needs of Swedish industry and Swedish business even in the short term.
Sweden's competitiveness and welfare are based on secure access to fossil-free energy at competitive prices. The decommissioning of dispatchable electricity production has led to increased vulnerability in the Swedish electricity system and a deteriorated power balance. The Government has therefore realigned the energy policy, partly to meet an increasing demand for electricity in the short, medium, and long term, and partly to secure a reliable energy supply and efficient transition. The new goals for planning and security of supply are central to ensuring that the expansion of the electricity system can be carried out in a socio-economically efficient manner.
The Government assesses today that Sweden should plan to be able to meet an electricity demand of at least 300 terawatt-hours in 2045. The electricity system shall have the conditions to enable electrification where the needs are greatest without compromising the security of supply in the electricity system. New electricity production from all fossil-free types of power is seen by the Government as necessary to meet the climate goals and enable the green transition. The Riksdag has, at the Government's proposal, decided to change the previous energy policy goal of 100 percent renewable electricity production to 100 percent fossil-free electricity production in 2040.
The Government wants to provide good conditions for all fossil-free types of energy and welcomes all new electricity production that strengthens the electricity system with the right characteristics and in the right location, which is also clarified in the government bill on energy policy direction. It also appears there that flexibility, electricity production, and the grid shall contribute to a more efficient and secure electricity system that can meet the demand for electricity at competitive prices. Today, not everyone who wants to connect to the electricity grid or receive the power from the electricity system that is needed can do so, even though there is a surplus of energy.
The Government has decided and implemented a number of measures to address the power shortage in the country. In the budget bill for 2025, the Government has proposed a new investment support to increase the capacity in the electricity system where the needs are greatest, the so-called Kraftlyftet. The measures shall strengthen the security of supply and the ability to deliver electricity where demand exists, at the right time and in sufficient quantity. Through a robust electricity system with investments to bring in more power and more electricity where the needs are greatest, Sweden's competitiveness is strengthened and it will also benefit Sweden's households and companies.
A prerequisite for expanding the electricity system is well-developed energy planning. It is important to identify where investments in the electricity system may need to be made to enable a robust, cost-effective, and rapid electrification. In the budget bill for 2025, the government has proposed that funds be allocated to take a broader approach to precisely the coordination of the national electricity system's long-term planning.
In the same budget bill, the government has also proposed a number of measures to secure an increased expansion of fossil-free electricity production, including support to the municipalities to create incentives for new wind power. Furthermore, additional measures are being prepared to promote land-based and coastal wind power based on the proposals in the report The Value of the Wind. A continued efficient utilization of hydropower will also be crucial for Sweden to meet its climate goals and carry out the electrification. Additionally, the supply of gas to the west Swedish gas grid is an important issue for the government, and the government has tasked the Swedish Energy Agency to review the security of supply, primarily for the west Swedish gas grid.
The Government has taken several other measures for a robust electricity system that can meet a doubled electricity demand. For example, 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 to analyze and propose how the Swedish electricity market can be developed and regulated. The Government's starting point is that all fossil-free types of power shall have comparable rules of the game on the electricity market.
To manage the climate transition with a developed welfare state and strong competitiveness, research and innovation is also a key. During the autumn of 2024, the government intends to submit a bill on research and innovation specifically in the energy area.
Mattias Jonsson (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank Minister Ebba Busch for the answer to my interpellation concerning the energy supply in Western Sweden.
Western Sweden is in a unique position ready to carry out extensive and real investments for fossil-free technology and green transition. It is about enabling a development of the region and placing it at the forefront of the green transition. But this potential is threatened by the uncertainty in Swedish energy supply.
In a report from Västra Götalandsregionen, which Västsvenska Handelskammaren recently referred to in an article in Dagens industri, it is warned that 10,000 jobs could disappear by 2030 and 70,000 jobs in the long term if we do not secure the electricity supply in time. It is therefore incredibly important to have a focus on this in both the short and long term. These serious figures require both our attention and action. That energy is not available in the right place at the right price risks stopping investments in Western Sweden by hundreds of billions of kronor, of which many investments are already decided. This is crucial not only for Western Sweden but for the entire Swedish economic growth and Swedish competitiveness. Therefore, the government needs to act now.
It is important that we do not get stuck in a debate about wind power versus nuclear power, because we need both types of power moving forward.
The green transition involves large investments in Western Sweden. The government has tasked the County Administrative Board with preparing permit applications for offshore wind power, which in Western Sweden alone could provide approximately 21 terawatt-hours of electricity. The purpose is to meet current and future needs. We must, with joint efforts, ensure that this energy arrives at the right time.
Electricity consumption in Västra Götaland County amounts to 19 terawatt-hours per year today but is expected to double by 2030. This means that an additional 15-20 terawatt-hours of fossil-free electricity are needed by 2030 to meet the needs from the industry's transition and for new establishments, including two battery factories. The one in Mariestad is a bit further ahead in time, but the one in Gothenburg, Novo Energy, kicks off in 2027.
We have several trials of offshore wind farms underway, for example Poseidon and Mareld off the west coast, but if we do not act quickly and powerfully we risk missing these important opportunities.
Madam Speaker! A question linked to my interpellation to Ebba Busch is how the government ensures that the energy supply will not only be sufficient but will also be realized by 2030, so that we can meet today's and future needs. We cannot lock ourselves into a single type of energy. It is crucial to invest in a diversity of fossil-free alternatives linked to energy sources.
My second question concerns the connection fees. We see that Kriegers flak has been stopped via Vattenfall because the government is not proceeding with giving the green light to take on the connection costs. What does the government intend to do to ensure that the offshore wind power installations are completed on time?
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I will do my best to try to understand the question that it is not only that there must be enough electricity or energy, but also that it actually happens. We shall see if I understand the question correctly.
I would like to start by saying that I really appreciate Mattias Jonsson's point. It is about a sense of urgency, that is, how acute this is. We often talk about the situation in northern Sweden and the risk of missed investments – but we see missed investments every month in electricity area 3 and 4. It is tangible. We have already seen that thousands of jobs have been missed in southern Sweden due to power shortages.
I also appreciate the allocation regarding different types of power. I tried to explain the government's position that it is not possible to focus unilaterally on one type of power. As Minister for Energy, I have said many times that all good forces are needed and that we need to manage to think about both the short, medium, and long term.
I will go a little deeper into what the problem is. Today we have a situation where only in the last two years, quite a few megawatts have been added to the system. In 2023, 3,300 megawatts were added. That was an increase of 7 percent. That corresponds to the production from three large nuclear reactors. The forecast for this year, 2024, is that 2,800 megawatts will be added. That is approximately two large nuclear reactors. If the forecast holds, the electricity system has thus increased by 6,100 megawatts in two years.
It is wind and sun that are increasing in the electricity system. That is what we can get out now in the short term. In electricity area 3, production has increased by 900 megawatts. That is almost as much as the entire production from Ringhals 1. Many wonder, rightly so, why we then cannot connect many more factories, companies, and industries. Then we are back to the question that Mattias Jonsson highlighted, namely the power shortage. We cannot just have more electricity in the system, which makes the system larger, because it goes to export.
In a context a few weeks ago, someone asked why we can't just keep the electricity in Sweden. But those sitting in the stands here now who perhaps are still in school are welcome to go home and delve into the issue of energy. How long can one store energy? What storage possibilities are there? If we have a huge amount of wind on a Thursday but would like to level out that electricity production so that there is guaranteed to be some electricity every day next week – is it possible to do? Yes, in theory it is. But so far we don't quite have that storage capacity. The government is looking at it, and we want to expand it in Sweden, but the technology is actually not there. It is nowhere in the world on the scale that Sweden would need to solve our problems.
I want to emphasize that we are paving the way for more wind power. During its first eight months, the government said yes to two offshore wind farms off the west coast of Sweden. A lot of electricity has been added, but there needs to be a focus on how to get more power out.
The government has made decisions to protect hydropower, buy back Öresundsverket, and create test pilots for gas turbines, and we will do much of this. We need to continue to look at that discussion and those solutions.
Mattias Jonsson (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! I shall try to make my questions somewhat clearer.
We talked about capacity, and the topic of capacity comes up in almost every debate. I also hear government representatives talk very much about that the important thing is not the amount of terawatts but the capacity. Capacity is, of course, very important. We need nuclear power, and we need hydropower, which is dispatchable. We need to have capacity in the system. But there is also a great need for more electricity production until 2030. What is the government doing to achieve that?
In an interpellation debate not very long ago with Minister Ebba Busch, I stated that the Social Democrats' goal is to increase Swedish electricity production by 60 terawatt-hours by 2030. At that time, I was told that perhaps even 70 terawatt-hours might be needed. I believe that the opposition and the government share the view on the need, but we see the path there a bit differently.
It is good that the government wants to support municipalities' expansion of land-based wind power, even though we would have thought that support needed to be expanded. One should receive support if one removes the veto that the municipalities have already imposed to stop land-based wind power. It is an area where I think one can do more.
A veil hangs over the investment opportunities regarding offshore wind power because the government is not taking the connection costs. I hope that the government has the opportunity to rethink, crawl out of the Tidö Agreement, and get the freedom to give directives to Svenska kraftnät to take that cost so that Kriegers flak can be realized. That would do very much to improve the situation in southern Sweden. The decision not to take the connection costs also implies a risk of a domino effect on the west coast. Then the parks at sea there might not be realized.
I have spoken with Volvo, Preem and other companies, and they say that they want more electricity right now. Decisions must be made, and investments must be made. Nuclear power 2035 or 2040 is fine. Invest in that – but do not forget what is happening here and now! If we do not take the needs for 2030 seriously, we do not need any nuclear power 2040, because then those investments will have gone elsewhere.
The question, therefore, to be even clearer, is what more the government is doing to ensure that more power production is in place by 2030. A plea from the Social Democrats and from me here in the speaker's chair now is that the previous decision is reconsidered and Svenska kraftnät is tasked with taking the connection costs so that Krieger's barges are in place and the offshore wind farms off the west coast are also secured.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I want to start with a very overarching summary. We have much more electricity in the system today compared to ten years ago. It is 13,000 megawatts net if one compares 2013 with 2023, and those are enormous amounts. But we can only consume approximately the same amount today as ten years ago - perhaps a little more. That is the entire difference between talking about terawatt-hours and talking about megawatts. One is talking about more electricity production and the other is talking about more power.
I am also the Minister for Enterprise, and what I ask all power companies when they want to build new is how much electricity I can promise to connect new companies. It could be a new bakery, an expansion of an industrial operation, or a completely new investment. That is what we must focus on. If we continue to only add more electricity in the way we have done today, we will still be left with a huge power shortage. More power needs to be contributed. We in this chamber have fundamentally agreed on the energy policy direction proposition and also stated that we shall arrange the economic incentives so that one also receives more payment for it.
If the wind power companies can start delivering more power and not just a mass of additional electricity that one then makes money by exporting to Denmark, Poland and Germany, then it will be possible to obtain greater economic incentives for this.
More power ensures that prices in Sweden do not become extremely volatile and that we do not need to balance the system so much all the time. It is technology neutrality. If one can deliver stability and power into the system, one should also be paid for it. If the electricity comes and goes as it pleases, it will become a bit more difficult in the future. It has not helped Sweden over the last ten years.
To be concrete, I want to say first and foremost that we had a hearing, as one might call it, in electricity area 4 a few weeks ago, and I intend to have a similar one in electricity area 3. It might have to become two. We will see; it is a large area. I hope to be able to come back with dates in the near future. There we can focus on the short-term view. 2030 is urgent – it is here and now.
We have now allocated several hundred million kronor in investments in the budget for what I call Kraftlyftet. It will ensure that we get better use out of all the electricity that exists in the system.
I mentioned the pilot project with gas turbines, which does not necessarily mean that electricity will become cheaper, but we might be able to get more guaranteed power.
When it comes to the streamlined connection queue, the steel company SSAB can cut 10 percent of Sweden's total carbon emissions. They were allocated power at the beginning of the year thanks to the government's policy.
Öresundsverket is maintained, hydropower gets better conditions here and now, and there will be long-term and stable conditions for existing and new nuclear power. To this can be added the work with energy planning. Where in the system the electricity production is located can determine whether an investment will happen or not, for example in Mariestad.
For me, it is extremely important that we carry out the green transition with high competitiveness. It is a top priority.
To answer specifically the question regarding Krieger's flak, there are no thoughts about reconsidering the decision not to cover the connection fee. It is because of technology neutrality. We do not do this for any other type of power, and we do not do it for land-based wind power either.
If one can contribute more power into the system, this will be rewarded financially in the future. There is an openness to talk about economic incentives. We have an active dialogue with the wind power companies and will continue to have it in the future regarding storage, support services, and other things needed for a stable and robust electricity system.
Mattias Jonsson (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer to the question regarding the connection fees for Kriegers flak.
It is precisely the technology neutrality that makes it necessary for the government to tell Svenska kraftnät to cover the connection cost. Why then? Well, because the state and Svenska kraftnät did this for nuclear power and for hydropower. It should also be done for offshore wind power in order to have just technology neutrality when that type of new electricity production is started up.
The argument regarding technology neutrality is important. Not taking the cost into account is a lack of technology neutrality, and therefore I believe the government should reconsider this issue.
The government leans heavily towards nuclear power, the power issue, and what lies far in the future and spends a lot of money on it. Regarding technology neutrality, 400 billion kronor in credit guarantees have been announced that are directed solely at nuclear power. We believe that they need to be directed at all types of power, regarding technology neutrality, and not solely at nuclear power.
If we do not solve this now, the risk is that we will get expensive electricity at some point in the future. Furthermore, the consumers and the Swedish people are to be part of paying for this for 40 years. I saw a calculation showing that for a household it can amount to 7,000 kronor a month.
I find it difficult to see that the government or Minister Ebba Busch wants an Ebba-tax for all households for a nuclear power plant that may come far into the future and which causes us to miss all the industrial investments that are currently at our doorstep.
Please have a focus on 2030 and the consultation meetings, if that can lead somewhere, but also have a focus on the connection fees so that we do not get the same effect as it became for Kriegers flak even outside the west coast. It is a strong plea.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! If it yields much effect, that is to say guaranteed electricity that I can connect new companies and new industry to, we can talk about economic incentives.
I want to give you the figures 84, 74, 18 and 11. It concerns what is called the de-rating capacity factor, which some people find very boring to hear about, but which I think is fantastically important in order to truly understand what works and what does not. It has been called capacity factor in the debate and concerns how much electricity I have for connection and how much guaranteed power is available.
Something we should also really thank the Social Democrats for is that the state many years ago paved the way for nuclear power and hydropower with state funds and also welcomed private funds. The reason is that hydropower delivers 84 percent. It is so beautiful that one wants to cry. It is among the finest things we have: fossil-free base power where a huge amount can be delivered and connected.
Nuclear power delivers 74 percent, and when it becomes more miserable in Sweden, nuclear power delivers even more. Then the system works even better.
For offshore wind power, the figure is 18 percent, according to SVK and according to the way of calculation that we must adhere to under Swedish law. For onshore wind power, the figure is 11 percent.
This is the reason why there are different economic incentives. We need to be technology-neutral when it comes to who can provide what the system needs, what the Swedish people need, and what Swedish companies need.
Based on this, we have 50 measures that can make the system stronger by 2030. I do not think that is enough. I am happy to speak with the Social Democrats about more measures both in the short and long term.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.