Response to interpellation 2024/25:540 on the EU infringement case regarding modern environmental permits for hydropower
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
L believes that the Swedish regulatory framework constitutes a full incorporation of the EU's requirements for regular reviews of hydropower 1 2. L argues that the Swedish regulatory framework ensures that environmental goals are achieved 1. L emphasizes that the pausing of the processes is not the subject of the specific criticism from the Commission, but that the government has justified the pausing with the need for relief for the electricity system 2 3. L argues that the government is working to balance different public interests and has taken initiatives to manage cultural environments 3. S believes that it is important that the resources to handle cases quickly are put in place 4. S also argues that the question of how the financial situation should be handled for dams without a connection to electricity production needs to be addressed for real 4. L agrees that the review processes need to start as soon as possible 5. L wants the processes to be more well-functioning than before in order to improve efficiency and reduce costs 5. L sees the fund that the industry has campaigned for as an effective system for financing 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Joakim Järrebring has asked me if I intend to promptly ensure that Sweden fulfills the EU's requirements and how I and the government intend to act to avoid costly sanctions from the European Commission.
The European Commission has, in a formal notice dated 16 December 2024, stated that Sweden has failed to fulfill certain obligations under the Water Framework Directive. The Commission states, among other things, that Swedish legislation does not ensure that permits for hydropower plants and dams are reviewed sufficiently regularly and updated when necessary, which, in the Commission's view, means that the negative consequences of hydropower for the aquatic environment are not captured quickly enough.
Madam Speaker! In its response to the formal notification on 31 March 2025, the Government addresses the Commission's objections and describes how the directive's requirements for regular review and necessary updates of permits for hydropower plants and dams are incorporated into Swedish law. This is done partly through the provisions on reassessment for modern environmental conditions for hydropower which entered into force on 1 January 2019, and partly through provisions on the supervisory authority's obligation to conduct supervision of water activities and the possibilities to, under certain circumstances, reassess and revoke permits for hydropower plants and dams earlier than the point indicated in the national plan for reassessment of hydropower.
The requirements of the Directive are also incorporated through the regulatory framework on action programs and environmental quality standards. Examples of this are the municipalities' and authorities' obligation to take measures according to an action program and their responsibility to ensure that environmental quality standards are met, together with the tools available in the form of the supervisory authority's possibility to issue an order during supervision against operators of hydropower plants and dams to take corrective measures, as well as the right to decide on general regulations.
The Government considers, in other words, that the Swedish regulatory framework constitutes a full incorporation of the directive's requirements for regular reviews and necessary updates of permits for hydropower plants and dams, which ensures that the environmental objectives in the Water Framework Directive are achieved.
Joakim Järrebring (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.
We have discussed this regarding hydropower and environmental permits several times before in the chamber, but the starting point for this interpellation was precisely the EU Commission's infringement case.
I have taken note of the Minister's response, where a strong focus was placed on how well we have implemented the directive into Swedish legislation. My impression is that we have incorporated the directive well into Swedish legislation, and I do not think that the criticism raised by the Commission hits particularly accurately when it comes to the incorporation. I do, however, feel that the sharp criticism from the Commission concerns the suspension of the review of hydropower.
We have discussed the issue of the suspension of the review and what consequences it entails. It has consequences both for the environment and for the small hydropower owners who end up in an uncertain position, and it also has major effects for larger hydropower owners who are about to make large investments to increase the power and improve the hydropower in various ways. One simply does not dare to do that before a new, modern environmental permit is in place.
I know that the minister and I agree that all of this is negative effects of the pause. But I think it becomes extra spicy when the commission initiates a breach of contract case because there is then a risk that we could end up in a situation where we would need to pay money because we are not behaving as we should. It is actually with that as a starting point that I pose my follow-up question to the answer I have received from the minister.
I know that we had a discussion about this during the election campaign and that there was a great deal of concern, not least among small hydropower owners but also regarding residential environments, cultural environments and so on. When the government and the Council of State made their consideration regarding the suspension, how did one weigh the risk of a violation case and the negative environmental consequences of the suspension against the potential advantages that could be seen with the suspension? That is my follow-up question.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Let me begin by clarifying what the member himself highlights, namely that the formal intelligence from the commission which the government has recently responded to is not about criticism that the government has paused the implementation of the national plan for modern environmental conditions.
What the Commission claims instead is that the requirement in the Water Framework Directive needs to be reviewed regularly and that permits that have been incorrectly incorporated into Swedish law need to be updated when necessary. The Commission thus argues that a 40-year review cycle for hydropower plants and dams does not ensure sufficiently regular reviews and that the reviews do not ensure that the negative consequences of hydropower are captured quickly enough.
The government has addressed this in a response to the Commission. We believe that the Swedish regulatory framework constitutes a full incorporation of the directive's requirements for regular reviews and necessary updates. Let me therefore say that it is very positive that the member shares the view that Sweden does not fall short in that part of the work, for that is what we truly want to clarify both here in the chamber and in our response to the Commission.
Let us move on to the question of the pause. In the background description of the permit requirement for hydropower activities according to Swedish law, the commission repeatedly states that the government has pushed back its timeline for completing the instructions for the harmonization of environmental goals and the goals for hydropower production. The commission also notes that the deadlines for application for permit review in the current version of the timeline are distributed between 2025 and 2039. Since the review procedures take time in the first instance and after any appeals, the final reviews according to this timeline are expected to be completed in the early 2040s.
The Commission further notes that the government in the proposal for one of these postponements conceded that Sweden is in breach of the Water Framework Directive due to outdated hydropower permits and that the hydropower plants and dams that mean Sweden does not meet the requirements resulting from the Water Framework Directive need to be addressed.
Finally, the commission notes that the government completed its proposal for instructions to reconcile environmental goals and goals for hydropower production, that is, the memorandum with proposals for legislative amendments that we referred.
These writings in the formal report therefore constitute only a background description; they are not included in the criticism that the commission directs against the government. There is no explicit criticism from the commission's side regarding the pause, but it is only mentioned as the basis for the alleged violation of the case in the part I described earlier.
The answer to the member's question regarding how the government has reasoned concerning potential threats of fines or costly sanctions is, therefore, that it is not linked to the criticism that the Commission directs, because the Commission's criticism concerns another part of how we apply the Water Framework Directive. Our pausing of the processes is thus not taken up as explicit criticism of how we apply the directive, but only as grounds for a separate alleged infringement of the directive, which concerns another part. Consequently, we have not reasoned regarding that when it concerns our pausing, and as we note, that is also not what the Commission is directing criticism against.
Joakim Järrebring (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the account. I may have learned something new.
I want to delve a bit deeper here. My interpretation is highly amateurish because I am not a lawyer, but I have nevertheless followed these questions for quite a long time. Even if the pausing is not in focus for the formal criticism, the effect of the pausing is indeed negative when it comes to meeting the timeline. The timeline that was decided upon when we sat in government position was, in itself, far too protracted from the very beginning, but the pausing has not improved the situation.
The whole idea with the Water Framework Directive is to protect the aquatic environment. We know that the suspension of the tests has negative effects on the aquatic environment, so it can certainly be said that the suspension contravenes the intentions of the Water Framework Directive, regardless of whether this is what the Commission's criticism focuses on or not. I note that the Minister nods in agreement, so we are at least in agreement on this.
I previously touched upon how the reasoning regarding the risk of violations and the risk that the suspension would have environmental consequences was handled. I also want to bring in an aspect that I raised at the conclusion of my previous speech.
During the election campaign, and actually also during the end of the previous parliamentary term, there was a great deal of discussion and criticism regarding cultural environments and the removal of dams that had no connection whatsoever to Swedish hydropower production. I will not say too much about the minister or her party; it was primarily other parties in the current government that were very vocal and wanted the previous government to do something to save these cultural environments. They called for a pause.
After the election, the Tidö parties formed a government and justified the pause by stating that the effects on the electricity system would be reviewed. That was a different argument than the one presented in the criticism during the election campaign. My impression is that very few of those who were angry about the review that was underway are particularly satisfied with the changes that the government is now putting forward. There were expectations that this government would do something about the removal of dams that perhaps are not primarily linked to electricity production.
It is also the case that quite a few of the small hydropower dams, which are nevertheless connected to hydropower, have very marginal significance for the electricity system. This means that the pausing and the changes that the government is proposing do not help these hydropower owners or the residents around the dams.
I believe there is a discrepancy between the government's argumentation regarding the electricity system and the basis provided by the responsible authorities. The responsible authorities were quite clear that it would be possible to carry out reassessments and environmental adaptations within the framework of a well-functioning electricity system. It feels as though the decision was not based on objective facts, but rather that it was political considerations that lay behind the suspension. Therefore, I would like to hear the minister explain why the basis from the expert authorities, which did exist, was disregarded.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! The member has asked a number of questions. I shall answer to the best of my ability.
These are quite complex issues concerning the Water Framework Directive, which conditions apply according to this rather extensive directive, and how they affect our hydropower plants, which deliver to our electricity system, as well as small dams and power plants that have more of a cultural-environmental function in our society.
When we in the government have justified the pauses that are made, we have, just as the member explained, primarily emphasized that the electricity system is in need of relief. There are, of course, also other effects of this.
Even regarding cultural environments, the government has taken initiative. For example, in the regulatory letter for 2024, the county administrative boards received a reporting requirement according to which they were to report how they had contributed to and used various knowledge bases regarding cultural environments. From the reporting, it appears that the county administrative boards are actively working to produce cultural environment data that can be used in the review of environmental quality standards. A national working group has also been established which has worked to coordinate how cultural values are handled within the framework of water management, which is expected to contribute to a better focus on these issues when the assessment subsequently takes place. The government has attempted to apply this tool to work towards a reduction of the burden for those hydropower plants that exist primarily for cultural environment reasons and are not necessarily for the benefit of the electricity system.
Regarding the hydropower plants and dams whose design and operation mean that we in Sweden do not meet the requirements resulting from the Water Framework Directive, it is important that necessary reassessments can be carried out and that we environmentally adapt our operations as soon as possible. The Government has this as a clear line, but we are in a situation where different public interests need to be weighed against each other. The relief for the electricity system is an issue that, for many different reasons, has been highly relevant for Sweden's part.
We are keen to environmentally adapt these activities as soon as possible. In the referral memorandum, there are proposed clarifications regarding which level of requirements shall apply. We also want to ensure more effective cooperation prior to the design of applications. We know that the activities face many difficulties and that the design of applications for reassessment can significantly improve the conditions for a more time-efficient and high-quality process that can also contribute to Sweden ensuring its compliance with the requirements in EU law.
Joakim Järrebring (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.
Let me be a bit more forward-looking, just as the minister was in the conclusion of his answer. For many different reasons, it is incredibly important that we succeed in reconciling high environmental requirements with continued electricity production in Sweden. Hydropower is crucial for the Swedish electricity system; I know that the minister and I are in complete agreement on this.
One of the major challenges has been the extent of this process in time. It is about resources and how much one manages to examine. Resources are always limited, but it does not get any better by the government having reduced the appropriations to the responsible authorities.
I spoke earlier about how the investments are standing and waiting because one needs to be sure that one has a new and modern environmental permit before making large investments to, for example, increase the power of one's hydropower. Is it then not important that we ensure that the resources required to handle these matters quickly are put in place?
I also have one final question, which I know goes somewhat outside what the Minister has had the opportunity to prepare for. I will ask the question, and the Minister can choose whether she wants to answer or not.
A prerequisite for meeting the requirements to obtain a modern environmental permit is that one has a turnover and a surplus that can be used to pay one's share of the costs for making environmental adaptations. In cultural heritage areas, with dams that have no connection to electricity production, there is usually no turnover to use. How are we to handle the financial situation? I believe this is an issue that we need to address properly.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Regarding the timeline, I completely share the picture the member describes, namely that these review processes need to get started as soon as possible. But we must also ensure that when they do get started, they are more well-functioning than they have been previously so that we have truly taken advantage of the pause. We did not want this to be just an extension and a postponement of the processes, but we wanted to use the pause to improve how the processes are conducted. Here, I would especially like to extend a big thank you to the commitment the industry has shown in dialogue with the Government Offices and other stakeholders on how we can improve the processes.
This improvement will hopefully lead to lower costs and greater efficiency regarding the costs for these tests. We know that many of these hydropower operations hire expensive consultants to manage these processes, and just as the member mentions, many have difficulty making this work in terms of financing. Regarding the financing, the form the industry itself has advocated for, with a fund from which one can apply for funds for the tests, is a very effective system where it is private money in circulation. We hope that we can work to ensure that this fund continues to operate in this manner.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.