Response to interpellation 2025/26:259 on energy efficiency in Sweden
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns energy efficiency in Sweden. KD argues that the government's goals promote a socio-economically efficient energy system for green transition and secure energy supply 1. KD advocates for a broadened goal formulation that includes leveling of peak loads and energy storage 1. KD emphasizes that Sweden already has a strong focus on energy efficiency 2 and that efficiency is a complement to the expansion of fossil-free production, grid, and storage 3 4. KD also wants to protect various forms of heating such as combined heat and power 4. MP argues that energy efficiency is the first fuel and that Sweden needs to increase the pace to lower electricity prices 5. MP wants to see larger investments in small houses and multi-family dwellings 6. MP advocates for a national action plan 6 7.
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! Katarina Luhr has asked the Minister for Climate and Environment what the reasons are that the Minister and the Government do not take a larger grip on the issue of energy efficiency and take measures to release more energy, and whether the Minister intends to take any initiatives to increase the pace of Sweden's energy efficiency work and, if so, which ones.
The work within the government is distributed in such a way that it is I who shall answer the interpellation.
A similar question was recently asked by Member of Parliament Fredrik Olovsson from the Socialdemokraterna. I will hereby once again highlight the work the government is undertaking regarding the work to promote a socio-economically efficient energy use.
In the energy policy direction bill (prop. 2023/24:105), which we sometimes call the epip, it appears that the government's long-term direction for energy policy is to maintain good competitiveness and welfare, meet society's needs for electricity and at the same time ensure a secure energy supply, as well as contribute to achieving 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.
A proposal for a new objective formulation has recently been out for consultation with a response deadline of 23 December 2025. 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. It is proposed that the objective 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 consultation responses are now being handled by the Government Offices.
The government is also working on several other measures to promote efficient energy use. Among other things, the government is investing, in accordance with the budget bill for 2026, in an extension and development of the existing grant for energy efficiency in small houses. The grant involves 300 million kronor per year between 2026 and 2030. The initiative also includes information efforts and competence-enhancing efforts.
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 approximately 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 reduce emissions, for example through energy efficiency in industry, electrified transport solutions, and waste heat recovery.
Last but not least, extensive work is underway to implement the European Parliament and Council Directive of 13 September 2023 on energy efficiency and amending a regulation and European Parliament and Council Directive 2010/31 of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings. The Government intends to return to the Riksdag with proposals for the implementation of these legal acts.
Katarina Luhr (MP)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ebba Busch, for the answer!
I really look forward to the opportunity to debate the issue of energy efficiency with the Minister for Energy. The issue is very important, and I do not think the government has really taken it seriously, even though the work could have had tangible effects on the Swedish electricity system.
The interpellation was initially addressed to Minister for Climate Romina Pourmokhtari. The reason I addressed it to the Minister for Climate was that I received a response from her to a written question I posed after Sweden's climate policy had plummeted in the international ranking Climate Change Performance Index. There, Sweden received low grades in the category of energy use.
The Minister for Climate brushed it aside and wrote that we have a cold climate and that our electricity system is still largely fossil-free. That is true to some extent. But it is also the case that the absolutely cheapest and most environmentally friendly kilowatt-hour is the one that does not need to be used. Energy and electricity production always entails an environmental impact, and that applies even to green and renewable electricity. That is why the International Energy Agency calls energy efficiency the first fuel.
From a global perspective, Sweden and we Swedes are not particularly good at energy efficiency. Since we have historically had low electricity prices, we have not had any longer periods where we have had to be frugal with our electricity use. This contributes to us receiving low grades when we are compared with others. It also means that we have a lot to do to use our Swedish energy more efficiently.
In 2023, Fossilfritt Sverige released a strategy for a more efficient use of energy and power with measures for both properties and industries that could reduce Sweden's current energy use by 10 percent. Based on the strategy, 19 terawatt-hours per year can be saved just through measures in homes and premises. And 19 terawatt-hours of freed energy can be compared with the Ringhals nuclear power plant, which produced 16.1 terawatt-hours in 2024.
The Energy Authority assesses in a report from 2024 that in Sweden until 2030 there is a potential to reduce electricity consumption by in the magnitude of 20–25 terawatt-hours of electricity through energy efficiency. We can compare these figures with the Forsmark nuclear power plant. There, according to Vattenfall, a total of 21.78 terawatt-hours were produced in 2024 to the Swedish power grid.
According to these figures, we could already by 2030 free up energy equivalent to an entire nuclear power plant through profitable energy efficiency measures. Energy equivalent to existing nuclear power plants could therefore be available much faster than through the government's new nuclear power projects. Furthermore, these measures could lower electricity prices throughout Sweden and make us more secure in a time of crises and anxiety.
Sweden has several international commitments regarding energy efficiency. We signed on at the COP 28 climate summit to promises of a doubling of the rate of energy efficiency. We also have EU directives to follow. Regarding the EU's goals for energy efficiency, Sweden's contribution today constitutes a very small part of what the EU is to do.
Sweden needs to do its part. At the EU level, every percentage point of energy efficiency is estimated to create thousands of jobs, provide tangibly lower energy costs for households, and contribute 7.9 billion euros in increased GDP. If the entire European electricity consumption were reduced by 10 percent, Sweden's electricity prices could be halved.
It is therefore not only electricity prices and electricity consumption, but also our competitiveness and the labor market that are affected when we improve energy efficiency. At the national level, both Swedish technology companies and the construction sector would benefit from a large-scale program for energy efficiency.
Therefore, I pose my questions again: What are the reasons why the Minister and the Government do not take a greater grip on the issue of energy efficiency? Does the Minister intend to take some new initiatives to increase the pace of Sweden's energy efficiency work? If so, which ones?
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! We shall see if we manage to work through this. I believe, however, that I have answered the questions. But let us begin with the concepts.
We are in complete agreement on one thing, and that is that energy efficiency is central. It is of course good both for households' wallets and for Swedish competitiveness, but it is also good for our resilience. Sweden shall use more electricity but, above all, use it more smartly. But we also need to be honest that the conditions have changed. That is why we are trying to modernize and broaden the concept.
Katarina Luhr highlights Forsmark as an example. I would like to focus on nuclear power to demonstrate my point in this. With our previous efficiency goal, it was good to shut down nuclear power, even though fossil-free baseload power is a crucial means to be able to increase electrification and reduce emissions in other parts of society. Shutting down nuclear power with the previous measure meant a lot of energy efficiency. That is perhaps good if one does not like nuclear power or if one is a member of the Green Party, but it is obviously catastrophic for Swedish wallets, Swedish competitiveness, and Swedish resilience.
In the same way, it appears that the climate ranking that Katarina Luhr refers to also disadvantages Sweden for our nuclear power. Despite the fact that Sweden is better on all points that could possibly play a role, these highly concrete successes are weighted lower than other more diffuse aspects.
For example, Sweden has lower emissions per capita than Denmark. Sweden is below the EU average. Denmark is above. Despite this, Denmark ranks in the top ten in the ranking while Sweden is in 15th place. We are roughly in parity with each other regarding wind power production per capita. Sweden has 63 percent renewable energy. Denmark has 47 percent. We have largely the same or comparable climate goals as Denmark, but still, Denmark ranks in 4th place and Sweden ranks in 36th place. These two examples illustrate why better-designed goals are needed.
Let me conclude: When the Green Party pushes for what sounds good, that is to say reduced energy consumption, it becomes an end in itself. That is what I hear in all the argumentation and in the construction of how this is to be incentivized. The Government, on the other hand, is pushing for a socio-economically efficient energy use in a growing electricity system.
I also want to say something about what Katarina Luhr said in her post. It concerns the claim that Sweden has had no reason to save on electricity. From a certain aspect and with the reasons that Katarina Luhr provides, I can see the point.
On the other hand, it can be argued exactly the opposite, because efficiency is truly what has characterized the Swedish debate for decades, as a solution for how we are to manage the decommissioning of combined heat and power, which we have heard about in previous debates here in the chamber today, and not least the decommissioning of nuclear power. It is also, among other things, why Swedish companies are leading when it comes to solutions such as heat pumps and therefore why Swedish buildings are among the world's best insulated – because we have had that incentive and that focus. We will have that in the future as well, but with a slightly broader approach.
Katarina Luhr (MP)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! I think perhaps my argument fell a bit short in the answer. My argument is that by freeing up energy from unnecessary energy use, we can get energy to use for completely new applications. It will go much faster to produce that energy than if one were to build new nuclear power, for example. It is not about making energy more efficient by removing energy, but rather by using the energy in a different way.
The Minister for Energy also points out in his response that the government's long-term direction for energy policy is to establish good competitiveness and welfare, meet society's needs for electricity, ensure a secure energy supply and contribute to the climate goals through significant electrification. Furthermore, we have a need for more electricity production capacity, electricity grids and storage possibilities. This we are in complete agreement on.
If we are to phase out fossil energy from our industries and increase Sweden's production of steel with low climate impact, more electricity is needed. But the fastest, most resource-efficient, and often cheapest energy comes from electricity that we already produce and can save so that it does not go to unnecessary energy use. Not wasting the energy we already produce should be a priority for a government that cares about both electricity and energy prices.
The Minister also highlights in his answer the government's support for energy efficiency in small houses. With the Green Party in government, there was during 2021 a grant for energy efficiency of multi-family dwellings, which in a short time was paid out to approximately 1,000 property owners, with many more in the queue. The government removed this.
If one looks at Boverket's figures on the support for energy efficiency of small houses, one sees that it also seems to be very popular. All 300 million per year seem to be used. Approximately half of those who apply also receive a rejection.
These are clear indications that a larger investment could have a great effect regarding both single-family houses and multi-family dwellings. Through a larger investment in this, the government could also reduce the risk and anxiety of skyrocketing electricity prices by giving people increased opportunities to take their own measures to long-term reduce their own energy consumption. Furthermore, the measures themselves would reduce the risk of skyrocketing electricity prices for everyone.
I and Miljöpartiet would like to see more structured and forward-looking work when it comes to energy efficiency in both housing and premises. We see that there is a need for both larger investments and more measures. We want all buildings to be covered by support for energy efficiency, and we have proposed that the state should cover 50 percent of the cost for effective energy efficiency measures.
The Minister also highlights the work on changing the national energy efficiency target. I have skimmed the referral responses, and it is interesting reading. Most agencies seem to think that an updated target is needed. But the strong criticism seems to be that the target appears difficult to monitor. It is vaguely formulated, and there is no timetable for when it should be reached. In that case, it can also be difficult to initiate measures that will make a difference. I hope that the Minister and the government will take the objections into account and review the proposal again.
There are many ways to measure energy use. It does not have to be about a real reduction, but monitoring can be done per square meter, per krona, in relation to GDP or in other ways. But to manage this, clarity and political steering are required, and it is needed right now, without a doubt.
I still do not see that the government is doing what it should, especially when this could mean a win-win for all of us. I wonder therefore: Does the minister think we are doing enough, or does the minister think we would need to do more when it comes to energy efficiency?
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I think we are doing a very good job, but it is almost impossible to exhaust this area completely, not least because so much is happening in the field of technology. The great challenge is, I think, if one is to be humble as a policymaker: Which is the new technology that we are going to go for and roll out broadly? It is about daring to invest, putting all eggs in one basket and saying: This is what we are now going to hold onto over time, when so much progress is occurring in this area.
If I am to address the point about the new goal, one never wants to be accused of being vague. Being accused of being wrong is something I can handle, but not vague or unclear – it is terrible to hear!
A growing electricity system requires indicators – not a single figure, which could counteract electrification. Our point is that the proposal is based on monitoring via indicators in different sectors, linked to the goal's purpose: conservation, peak demand, flexibility, and storage. Setting the wrong figure can truly have quite devastating consequences. We want the goal to steer towards the right behavior in an electricity system that is also growing strongly.
We know now that efficiency is not just about villas. It is to a very high degree about industry, trade, and the public sector. It is about both pure energy efficiency and about using our resources and our heat more efficiently. It is also about utilizing our infrastructure and, not least, the power grid itself more efficiently. Otherwise, the Swede will have to continue to see skyrocketing grid fees.
I would not be doing my job if I did not also hit my chest a little regarding the issue of the directive on the energy performance of buildings. When we negotiated this in the EU, Sweden achieved several important successes. Among other things, the member states are given somewhat freer reins to interpret the legal text themselves during national implementation. This was important for Sweden in that we have come far here and, of course, want to take important steps forward. It means that we can design instruments that both meet the EU's requirements and are socio-economically reasonable for households, companies, and the public sector in a country like Sweden, which has come so far with this.
Katarina Luhr requests more activity in the area, but I can summarize that we are modernizing the goal, strengthening the support to households, expanding the support that provides flexibility for larger electricity users, ramping up Klimatklivet, and implementing stricter EU legislation.
With this said – had we had even more room in an infinite budget, I say now while the Finance Minister is sitting here in the chamber, both Elisabeth Svantesson and I would probably have put even more great things into the budget. But had we not had the fiscal restraint with the economy that we had at the beginning of the mandate period, we would not have been able to get a grip on inflation. Then we would also not have been able to reverse Sweden's bottom placement in the EU's growth when we took over after the red-greens, so that we now, under our joint leadership, instead begin to approach the top during this year. It is therefore connected. Much wants more.
Katarina Luhr (MP)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!
If I may comment on the negotiation regarding the energy performance of buildings, I think it was a wise negotiation, but it also shifted the responsibility for implementation from the private property owner to politics. It actually means that the responsibility for implementing measures now lies with the Minister for Energy. There is, therefore, a quite clear direction: We need to act.
Regarding the objective, I think there will be opportunities to debate it further when the government presents a proposal. I also perceive it as the Minister thinking that we are good at energy efficiency. I personally think that we could do much more. I believe that we need a much larger and more structured effort and also a real will to actually make use of the energy that we produce in Sweden today.
Miljöpartiet has during the mandate period presented a number of proposals for energy efficiency and to increase the pace. We want a national action plan for energy efficiency. We want to strengthen the Swedish Energy Agency's work with energy and climate advisors. We want to introduce a state energy efficiency support that runs over several years forward. We want to plan for smart buildings. We want to make the million program housing and public buildings energy efficient, and we have a large number of other proposals.
A national action plan with clear measures and clear goals could steer very strongly towards a better use of the energy we produce today.
The election is approaching with great strides. I hope that the government will make the best of the time until then.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I want to start by returning the thanks. Thank you for the relevant questions and effective accountability in the chamber! It was an efficient use of our time here as well.
From my perspective, one of the important parts of the decision regarding the interpretation of EPBD was precisely to be able to safeguard different forms of heating, for example combined heat and power, which otherwise risk being disadvantaged in the system.
Let me summarize: We shall electrify. We shall not deindustrialize. This places demands on how we set the efficiency requirements. We shall not try to save our way to a new industrialization. It will require that we expand the system and also that we ensure we get the most possible benefit from the energy we have in the system.
Energy efficiency is not an alternative to expanding fossil-free production, grids, and storage. I have not heard that stated here either, but I still want to be clear about it. Energy efficiency should be seen as a complement that makes the entire system cheaper and more robust. That is why we have, firstly, updated an inefficient and outdated goal and, secondly, are trying to focus on managing peak loads, flexibility, and storage, and provide households, municipalities, companies, and not least the industry, with concrete tools to achieve energy efficiency.
In that way, we get a Swedish energy policy that holds together and aligns with the goal of being able to achieve 300 terawatt-hours and paving the way for fossil-free baseload power, for example nuclear power, together with the system that we already have.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.