Response to interpellation 2025/26:148 on measures for energy efficiency
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 KD argues that the government's direction is to maintain competitiveness and welfare through significant electrification, which requires expanded electricity production and grids 1. KD proposes a new energy efficiency goal that includes leveling peak loads and energy storage 1, as well as expanded subsidies for small houses and Klimatklivet 1. KD believes that electricity must be used more smartly to meet the planning goal of 300 terawatt-hours of electricity by 2045 2 and that inflation allows for an expansive budget for growth 3. KD wants to include investments for flexible power usage and reduced losses in the electricity grids 3, as well as more base load such as hydropower or nuclear power 3. KD wants to modernize the goal through reinforced support to households and larger electricity users 3 and emphasizes that one should electrify rather than deindustrialize 4. 5 S considers investment support to be excellent for lowering prices and strengthening the electricity system's stability 5 and argues that efficiency improves faster than new electricity production 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.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! Fredrik Olovsson has asked me in what way the government and I intend to take advantage of the potential for efficiency.
In the energy policy direction bill (prop. 2023/24:105), which is sometimes referred to by the catchy abbreviation EPIP, it appears that the government's long-term direction for energy policy is to maintain good competitiveness and welfare, to meet society's needs for electricity and at the same time ensure a secure energy supply, as well as to contribute to reaching the climate goals through significant electrification. To achieve the long-term direction, a comprehensive expansion of electricity production capacity, electricity grids, and storage possibilities is required. The bill also states the government's view on how efficient energy use can contribute. To take advantage of the potential for more efficient energy use, the government has also signaled in the energy policy direction bill a review of the current energy efficiency goal.
Today's goal risks being in conflict with the development towards increased electrification, which is crucial for reaching the climate goals and for strengthening Sweden's security of supply and competitiveness. The goal also risks being in conflict with an expanded nuclear power, which the government assesses as necessary for the transition.
A proposal for a new objective formulation is now out for consultation until December 23 this year. It will be interesting for the one who is to read it on Christmas Eve. The proposal for a new objective aims to promote a socio-economically efficient energy system that contributes to the green transition and to a secure energy supply. The objective is proposed to be broadened from solely covering efficient energy use on an annual basis to also include leveling of peak loads and increased demand flexibility and energy storage at the user level. The objective thus contributes more clearly to the energy policy goal of security of supply and the planning goal of 300 terawatt-hours of electricity by 2045. Well-functioning markets and potential for socio-economically profitable measures should constitute a basis for the design of political initiatives in the area.
The Government is also working on several other measures. Among others, in the budget bill (prop. 2025/26:1) for 2026, the Government proposes that the existing grant for energy efficiency in small houses be developed and extended, and that an additional 300 million kronor per year during 2026–2030 be allocated. The initiative also includes information and competence-enhancing measures. Furthermore, the Government proposes that the investment support to strengthen the security of supply in the electricity system, the so-called Kraftlyftet, be expanded. The investment support can also include investments that contribute to more flexible power and energy use among larger electricity users, so that the electricity grids can be utilized more efficiently.
Furthermore, in the budget bill for 2026, the government has increased the appropriation for Klimatklivet by 1.5 billion SEK to a total of 4.5 billion. The appropriation is expected to increase by an additional 1.5 billion both in 2027 and 2028. This means reinforced investments in projects that not only reduce emissions but can also increase energy efficiency, for example through energy efficiency in industry, electrified transport solutions, and recovery of waste heat in district heating systems.
Last but not least, extensive work is underway to implement the EU's energy efficiency directive and the directive on the energy performance of buildings. I cannot or do not wish to precede that work, but the government will return to the Riksdag with proposals for the implementation of these legal acts.
Fredrik Olovsson (S)
Madam Speaker! Thanks to the Minister for Energy and Industry for the answer!
In recent years, we have seen a decrease in new investment decisions regarding electricity production in Sweden. That probably relates to part of the government's policy and stance on these issues. This applies in particular to what was discussed here earlier regarding wind power.
It is a problem when we in Sweden need to electrify our society, because that is the path we want to take both for the transport sector and for our industry. There are many actors who do not trust that there will be electricity for them when they need it. This applies in particular to the new industries that want to establish themselves in Sweden and existing companies that want to expand here, create new growth and new jobs.
One alternative to more quickly create space for electrification and new users in the system is that we streamline. Now, I am deliberately skipping the fact that electrification probably also implies energy efficiency in itself.
Energy efficiency is still an area that the government has handled and continues to handle neglectfully, even though the Swedish Energy Agency points out that it is profitable to eliminate approximately every seventh kilowatt-hour.
You can also notice that if you scratch the surface of the answer that the Minister for Energy and Industry gave here. It is first and foremost not praise in my book that one does not remove a support that has existed for small houses. It would be completely absurd if one were to do so.
It is also true that the energy efficiency goal is out for consultation. But that goal is quite unclear, in practice not traceable, and the government also does not want to quantify it.
Authorities, companies, municipalities and individuals are expected to steer towards a goal that even the government cannot quite explain how it should be measured. That is problematic in itself.
Furthermore, for example, the energy efficiency directive would already be introduced in Sweden in Swedish law. The government now says that they will return. But it is not sufficient when the deadlines have already expired.
It is not the first time either. After several reminders, the EU Commission recently decided to sue Sweden because we have not introduced new rules to speed up authority decisions on renewable energy. We are therefore risking fines. Now, it is another area where development is moving so slowly that Sweden risks that type of action from the EU.
The Minister also speaks about other initiatives. I thought we should also look at what lies behind them. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's own reporting on the situation in Klimatklivet, which is done regularly, points to a very clear deficiency in this perspective. The majority of the applications concerning reducing electricity use are rejected. One simply does not receive support for that to any significant extent. One also regularly receives rejections for measures that lower the district heating demand.
What we are talking about here, energy efficiency, is almost excluded from Klimatklivet. It is otherwise an absolutely excellent measure that we support, have introduced, and would gladly expand.
Regarding Kraftlyftet, which the Minister has already raised a couple of times here today, it also does not appear, in any case not in the texts of the budget bill, that it is to be used for energy efficiency.
Nor even on the Energy Agency's website does it say anything about that being the purpose of the support. Nor does it say anything in the referred memorandum on the support regulation that is on the government's website.
The question remains where it appears that Kraftlyftet is to be used for this type of energy efficiency that I am requesting in my interpellation.
Why refer to Klimatklivet when applications in that area are rejected to such a large extent? Would it not be good if goals were quantified so that it would also be easier to follow up on this area? It is done advantageously and very well when it comes to new energy production, but there we unfortunately have to wait for investment decisions.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! Once again, thanks to Fredrik Olovsson for the interpellation.
We are in complete agreement that energy efficiency is absolutely central. It is good for the climate and for reducing emissions. It is good for household budgets and for Swedish competitiveness. I also think it is morally right and correct that one manages what one has and does not use it in excess and waste electricity.
We also need to be very honest with those who are trying to follow the discussion on energy issues. The conditions have truly changed. When today's energy efficiency goals were formulated, reality looked very different.
Then we spoke about reducing energy use generally. Now we stand in the midst of a comprehensive electrification of industry, transport, and society. We now have a parliamentary-bound planning goal to be able to meet a demand of 300 terawatt-hours of electricity by 2045. This means in practice that our system is essentially to be doubled.
In plain terms, it means that we will use more electricity. But we must use that electricity more smartly. It is precisely this that the government is now trying to do something about.
Even though the motto of efficiency is first wise, we cannot efficiency our way past the electrification of, for example, industry and transport that is needed to reduce our dependence on fossil imports, which ultimately also undermines both our security and our competitiveness.
We have a dialogue about whether there is a need to adjust our different types of interventions in different ways, for example Klimatklivet. Just because something is rejected does not necessarily mean that it would not have been possible for energy efficiency. There could, for example, have been other reasons. There is always an opportunity to have a dialogue with those who handle this.
What we now have out for consultation regarding specifically energy efficiency is so that we can receive wise comments and suggestions for improvement on what we are sending out.
It is difficult to set exact figures at the current stage for the reason that we want the system to grow. We want it to use significantly more electricity. It is important in order to be able to combine reduced emissions with increased economic growth.
Then it is difficult to determine exactly at what pace it should occur. It is a matter of ensuring that we do not set energy efficiency goals that prevent us from making the transition that we should make to achieve a greener, more emission-free, and competitive business sector in Sweden.
Fredrik Olovsson (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Deputy Prime Minister.
We really have nothing against increasing our electricity system. On the contrary, it is a very important part of our journey forward to build a stronger Sweden so that we meet the climate goals we have, but also build growth and create more jobs in the future.
Doing it in as efficient a way as possible is very central. The costs for this must be as low as possible. In the short term, it is about the possibility of bringing in new actors when the electricity system is not growing in the way it should for us to reach the targets by 2045. Efficiency is necessary to speed up the process of bringing in more.
We have nothing against, for example, Kraftlyftet. These are initiatives that we like and that we have requested. We want to see, for example, more investments in biogas turbines in southern and western Sweden in order to be able to increase the power output. We want to see more flexibility and storage in the system and other measures that we perceive both we and the government agree on and that are needed.
We simply need new base power to strengthen our electricity system. But that does not replace the fact that we have potential in energy efficiency. We have, for example, put forward other systems that could be possible. A market-based system such as white certificates could be a way to address the fact that many investments, and even the profitable ones, are not being realized. It is a pity that the work to develop such a proposal was abandoned by the government quite soon after the change of government.
We have also proposed that the renovation deduction should be strengthened and the level of the deduction raised to then target it specifically towards efficiency measures. It could tap into a large part of the potential in the country's small houses that are not covered by the support that the government now does not want to remove, and for that we must thank them. Furthermore, a similar system is needed for our tenants in multi-family buildings. We have repeatedly submitted that type of proposal. It would have been great if Ebba Busch had taken them further. But we obviously have to wait for that until we change government.
A strategic and persistent effort regarding the issues of efficiency and optimization can truly lower costs for ordinary Swedish families and companies. This applies both to their energy use here and now and to the fact that it contributes to lowering consumption generally when we save.
There are therefore very strong reasons to implement these proposals. It would strengthen people's finances, and it would increase Sweden's competitiveness.
During a period where construction, among other things, has stalled – here the government's own policy has truly contributed when it removed the investment support to build cheaper rental apartments – it could also create Swedish jobs for Swedish construction workers, who today are unemployed to an all too great extent.
I actually do not understand why the government is declining such a good mix of measures.
Of course, referral processes are used to improve proposals, but if the government sends out a proposal where energy efficiency is not a part of it, it is perhaps the case that Ebba Busch did not see that Kraftlyftet would be used for just that.
I understand that the question arises in the interpellation debate, because the government has too few measures in this area. Therefore, it is good that I have now been able to contribute with two additional proposals that could be implemented and do great good both for the electricity system and for Swedish families' wallets and also create more jobs in Sweden – right?
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I have noted here: root up, deduction for efficiency for small houses, good proposals.
With that said, Madam Speaker, one of this government's most important measures has been to get a grip on inflation, which stood at almost 10 percent when we took office. We have pushed it down significantly. This is the worst enemy of households and ordinary workers. It was about us simply getting a grip on it, and we have succeeded in that. It is also what enables a more expansive budget this year to get the economic wheels moving and to boost Swedish growth. That is why we now have a forecast – forecasts are always forecasts – of a GDP growth of 3.1 percent for next year, if my memory serves me correctly.
With that said, I still want to answer clearly regarding Kraftlyftet. It can also include investments that contribute to a more flexible power and energy use, so that the power grids are used more efficiently. It can also contribute to reducing losses in the power grids.
This is a bit of my segue to push for a broadening of the discussion surrounding energy efficiency. Efficiency is not just about villas. It is, to the highest degree, about our industry. It is about trade. It is about the public sector. It is not just about the energy efficiency itself, but also about utilizing the power grid itself more efficiently.
The very best way to utilize the existing grid and not risk imposing more costs on the customer collective in grid fees and the like, in connection with current discussions, is to have more base power in the system, for example in the form of hydropower or nuclear power. It is very unfortunate that we lost so much combined heat and power and not least nuclear power during the previous red-green government. It would have, in fact, made it easier, with all the wind power that has been added to installed production capacity, to move electricity from point A to point B in the existing grid in a more cost-effective way.
In the EU negotiations on the directive on the energy performance of buildings, we achieved several successes for Sweden's sake. Among other things, the member states are given slightly freer reins to interpret the legal text in the national implementation. In plain terms, this means that we avoid detailed regulation in a way that is important, given that Sweden is at a completely different level regarding energy performance compared to the rest of the EU.
In conclusion, I still want to emphasize that we are modernizing the goal of energy efficiency. We are strengthening the support for households. We are increasing the support that provides flexibility for larger electricity users. We are ramping up Klimatklivet, and we are implementing stricter EU legislation.
A lot is happening in this area, and it is going in the right direction.
Fredrik Olovsson (S)
Madam Speaker! In my first contribution, I went through exactly the points that the Minister raised. I have views on how the goal is formulated, but not on the fact that it is being changed, for that is naturally necessary.
I have views on the fact that people refer to Klimatklivet when it actually does not provide the type of energy efficiency measures that I have pointed out – they are primarily rejected. Kraftlyftet does not quite meet the parts that I spoke about in my interpellation, but we embrace Kraftlyftet both as an idea and when it comes to content.
These are very good measures that can be implemented and which have not had the opportunity to be implemented previously. That type of investment support and other measures are absolutely excellent. We may certainly need to see more of that in the future to quickly achieve major changes that can lower prices and make it possible for more companies to connect, and so that the stability of the electricity system can be strengthened during a period when we really want to use all the capacity we have to build more growth and create more jobs in Sweden. That is, after all, the purpose of it all. We do not have an electricity system because it is fun to have one, but because it delivers very important benefits and welfare in society.
Something that goes faster than getting new electricity production – that takes too long, not least now when we have not had investment decisions on the scale that is needed for several years – is still to increase efficiency.
I have prepared several proposals that could be used to make it go faster. It would be great if the Minister has written them down on his note, takes them to the department and ensures that they are implemented as soon as possible. It would be good for Sweden.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to Fredrik Olovsson for this interpellation!
I will keep it brief. It is obvious that we are fundamentally in agreement even on this part, even though we have a desire for different specifications and different tools in this.
Part of this – which concerns in particular the issue of Klimatklivet – I will take back to the department and also discuss with my ministerial colleague, Minister for Climate and the Environment Romina Pourmokhtari. But fundamentally, the important signal that I want to send is: We shall improve energy efficiency, but we shall do it in a way where we do not try to save ourselves into a new industrialization. We shall electrify, not deindustrialize. Then we will see what other good proposals emerge that we might perhaps be able to agree on during the next year or thereafter.
I do not wish Fredrik Olovsson a Merry Christmas, because I hope that we meet in the chamber again before Christmas Eve.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.