Response to interpellation 2025/26:395 on offshore wind power in the Kattegat
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 electricity production must be expanded for the climate transition and security of supply 1. KD advocates for economic incentives to municipalities, a new law on revenue sharing, and technological development to manage the weather dependency of wind power 1 2. KD considers that connection fees should not be borne by the network customer collective if it is not socio-economically profitable 1 and that bottleneck revenues may not be used for offshore wind power as it treats a type of power differently 2. KD strives for technology neutrality 3. 4 C considers that Sweden needs to be electrified for the climate crisis 4. C argues that the government has not created substantial additions 4 and that the focus on nuclear power creates uncertainty for wind power investments 4. C considers that the system needs several legs 5 and that the bottleneck is the expansion of connection points 5. 6 C wants a broad energy agreement with similar conditions for different types of power 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)
Mr. Speaker! Christofer Bergenblock has asked me what initiatives I am prepared to take to enable the expansion of offshore wind power off the Halland coast and in the rest of Sweden.
Electricity production needs to be expanded to meet electricity consumption in accordance with the planning goal for the electricity system as determined by the Riksdag. The planning of the Swedish electricity system shall provide the conditions to deliver the electricity needed for increased electrification and to enable the climate transition. Electricity production also needs to contribute to delivering the capacities that the electricity system needs in accordance with the security of supply goal. In a secure electricity system, both energy and power must be sufficient.
Wind power is now Sweden's largest energy source measured in installed capacity. More weather-dependent production in the electricity system, however, increases price volatility, which becomes particularly noticeable during the winter when electricity consumption is higher. In the short term, wind power can account for the majority of the additional electricity production needed to meet electricity consumption and contribute to the planning goal. But given wind power's weather dependence and high share of the total electricity production, wind power also needs to contribute more to Sweden's security of supply and security of provision.
The Government is in the process of implementing several concrete measures that strengthen the conditions for an effective expansion of wind power in Sweden.
In February, the government tasked the Swedish Energy Agency with paying out 340 million kronor decided in the budget for 2025 and 370 million kronor for 2026 to municipalities that have wind power. Both land-based and coastal offshore wind power are included in this. The payment to the municipalities has been carried out during the spring in the magnitude of 20,000 kronor per installed megawatt of wind power for each year. The compensation is intended to be long-term, and therefore the government is preparing a regulation that makes it possible to pay out the funds calculated for upcoming budget years.
The Government also intends to shortly present a proposal for a new law on revenue sharing from wind power facilities. The proposal also means that neighbors shall receive a share of the revenue from new wind farms, and this also includes coastal facilities. Together, the Government's measures aim to strengthen local communities, increase the municipalities' incentives to say yes to new wind power, and compensate those municipalities that have already allowed wind power to be built by creating local benefit and increased acceptance.
Furthermore, the government has so far during the mandate period granted applications for permits for three offshore wind farms in the Western Sea, which are planned to provide approximately 3,000 megawatts of installed offshore wind by the early 2030s. Additionally, several permit cases regarding offshore wind are being prepared by the relevant county administrative boards or are in the final stages of preparation in the Government Offices. To speed up the permit processes, the government has allocated 15 million kronor per year to the county administrative boards for their preparation of cases regarding offshore wind.
The state-owned enterprise Svenska kraftnät shall, according to its instruction, expand the transmission grid on land or at sea based on socio-economic profitability assessments. The previous instruction stipulated that the transmission grid should be expanded at sea even when it was not socio-economically profitable. If the costs of connecting offshore wind power in that manner are to be borne by the grid customer collective when it is not socio-economically justified, it would mean that the grid customers are subsidizing the offshore wind power. It is important that the expansion of the electricity system occurs in a cost-effective manner so that the total electricity cost for customers can be kept down.
The Government is working on a broad front to achieve a robust, secure electricity system that delivers electricity at competitive prices every day of the year, regardless of weather and wind, where it is needed, when it is needed.
Christofer Bergenblock (C)
Mr. Speaker! I thank Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch for the answer.
The world is in a climate crisis, and in recent years we have seen constantly increasing heat records regarding the temperature on Earth. It shows how important it is to manage the challenge of the green transition. Greenhouse gas emissions are not decreasing in the way they need to in relation to the goals of the Paris Agreement, and in Sweden, we have also seen during the current parliamentary term how greenhouse gas emissions are increasing.
We need to electrify Sweden to meet the challenge, and there I am convinced that we are in complete agreement between the government and the Center Party. It is about electrifying the vehicle fleet and also the industry, not least regarding green steel production, battery production, and other electricity-intensive products that need to be developed. There are calculations that say we need to double electricity production in Sweden by 2040–2045, and that is where the goal lies. At the same time, over the recent years, we have not been able to see any substantial additions of electrical energy to the system, despite the great need.
In 2022, there were still great hopes that wind power would be expanded. We entered an election campaign that was about large forests of steel of wind turbines that were to be opposed, whether on land or at sea. Since then, much has stalled regarding the projects that were underway.
I come from Halland, and I naturally look out over the Kattegat, not least because I live right in a small fishing village at the edge of the Kattegat. When the parliamentary term began, there were three projects underway, namely Stora Middelgrund, Kattegatt Syd, and Galatea-Galene. Of these, the government has said yes to one and a half. Stora Middelgrund got no, Kattegatt Syd got yes, and Galene remained of OX2's projects.
In total, the government has said yes to four offshore wind projects and no to 16 during the mandate period. The interesting thing is that of the four offshore wind projects that have received a yes, none have started construction. No expansion is taking place. Vattenfall announced a long time ago that they are pausing their projects based on the conditions that exist now. OX2, which was to expand Galene in Kattegatt, has announced that they are pausing their project because the conditions do not exist. Why are they not doing it? Yes, because the rules of the game have changed during the mandate period. It concerns the connection to the offshore wind farms, which will not take place in the way that was decided in the energy agreement of 2016.
It is also about the uncertainty that has been created in the energy market through the immense focus on and the heavy subsidizing of new nuclear power. It makes the market uncertain for those who want to invest in offshore wind power over the coming 20, 30, 40 years.
What should the minister do to get Vattenfall, OX2 and other stakeholders to actually begin the completely necessary expansion of offshore wind power, not least in Kattegat?
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I intend to build a little further on the basic situation for Swedish energy and perhaps above all wind power. In SVK's information regarding connection cases, it is relevant to look at the connection cases that concern both production and consumption. Then one sees that companies and households are queuing to connect to the 2030 timeline.
Four corresponds to 20,500 megawatts distributed across the entire country. It is therefore a huge demand, just as Christofer Bergenblock is pointing out. It would increase the maximum power from consumption from today's 25,000 megawatts to 45,500 megawatts. We are talking about a substantial increase in under ten years.
According to SVK's information, we have a total of 20,781 megawatts in the connection queue for production. Of that, solar power accounts for 5,000, wind power for 10,000, and other electricity production for 6,000. There is also some battery storage in this.
If we look at consumption, which is increasing because we have actually succeeded in increasing the power balance in Sweden in recent years, we see that it stands at 32,248 – also very high. It is data centers, industry, and other electricity use.
So there is a huge demand. There are also many applications to connect to the power grid in order to release production.
Mr. Speaker! A claim was made here that there have been no substantial additions of energy in recent years. But according to the facts, 7,200 megawatts of installed production capacity has been added. That is quite a lot. It corresponds to the power from very many nuclear power plants, if one wants to convert it. It corresponds, for example, to more than the entire planned support program for new nuclear power. 7,200 is a large entity.
Then one can ask: How much more of this has the Swede been able to consume? We have increased the power balance by approximately 2,000. That is what is really important for Sweden's future. But we have not been able to increase consumption so much more in relation to the installed production capacity, because there is a lot of wind power.
Why am I pulling all these figures? I do so, among other reasons, to confirm Bergenblock's view that we have great needs ahead, but also to nuance the picture that offshore wind power would be the solution to this.
The government has taken many measures to pave the way for both land-based and offshore wind power. The pace of the permit process for offshore wind power and the fact that we have given the county administrative boards more muscles to handle this testifies to that.
We have also managed to do for land-based wind power what the red-greens did not manage to do during eight years regarding economic incentives and supporting it further. I perceive this as welcome from the Center Party's side.
I mean, however, that we still stand at the point that it is difficult to justify that large costs are incurred on the grid collective, for example to cover the connection fee for offshore wind power, while the offshore wind power in all of Europe is currently struggling very much to make the economics work. In Denmark, they are stepping in with 90 billion to cover losses for Ørsted, which is one of the large wind power companies. It is not a viable path for a welfare and growth nation like Sweden.
Christofer Bergenblock (C)
Mr. Speaker! Is offshore wind power the solution to everything? No, it is not, of course. It is part of the solution. We already have a very robust energy system in Sweden today. The Energy Minister himself has stated this in discussions with the EU regarding the use of our bottleneck revenues in Sweden.
Last year we produced 168 terawatt-hours. 33 of these went to export. Looking at the distribution, one sees that hydropower, which is always our major base and regulating power, accounted for 41 percent, nuclear power accounted for 27 percent, and wind power accounted for 23 percent. Nuclear power accounted for a relatively small part last year because there were long periods of shutdown within that production.
What we need is a system with multiple legs to stand on. There, both nuclear power as well as hydropower and wind power play important roles. Solar power will play an ever greater role ahead – I am convinced of that – if the right incentives are given.
Energy storage will become extremely important in that system. We must be aware that hydropower actually accounts for an enormous energy storage capacity in Sweden today. That allows one to save energy for the winter half-year, which one simply cannot do when it comes to either wind power or nuclear power. But in hydropower, we have a regulating capacity. But we need energy storage systems, with both hydrogen and batteries, and of course hydropower.
We also need to utilize the combined heat and power plants more, as a stabilizer in the system. We also need smart, intelligent systems to manage the peak loads. But to manage this transition, we need increased production.
The government's policy so far has not led to this increased production regarding offshore wind power. Offshore wind power has the great advantage, compared to onshore, that it has a significantly more stable production throughout the year, largely also during the winter half when it can be more volatile on the onshore side.
However, to achieve an expansion of offshore wind power, it is not enough to grant permits. Prerequisites are also needed so that it can be built out. In Halland, we have looked forward to the two large projects. Kattegatt Syd, with approximately 80 wind turbines 2–3 miles out from the coast, would provide on the order of 5 terawatt-hours per year. This corresponds to the consumption of approximately 750,000 households. Galene, with an additional 20 wind turbines, would provide a production of approximately 1.7 terawatt-hours. This corresponds to the consumption of 320,000 households.
These parks would, of course, also create jobs, but above all, they would be an important addition to the power system in electricity area 3 and 4 in the short and medium term. We do need to expand the energy supply in the coming years as well. Even if there were to be new nuclear power in 10–15 years, we cannot wait for it.
I return, therefore, to the question. The bottleneck in this system is the expansion of connection points from the transmission grid to the offshore wind power. Svenska kraftnät holds large resources in the form of bottleneck revenues. My question to the Minister is whether she sees an opportunity to clarify the mandate for Svenska kraftnät to achieve this expansion?
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Mr. Speaker! We have given an important assignment to review the incentives for intermittent power production in Sweden. Here we have had an important dialogue primarily with both solar power and wind power producers. It can be about the pace of decision-making processes, economic incentives, better overview and transparency in what determines a decision, for example when the municipal veto comes in, and the like. It is an important dialogue with that part of the energy industry that has not been held previously.
Not least the wind power industry themselves feel that they could develop their technology to contribute more to the security of supply in the system. That is to say, one should not just produce a lot of electricity when it is windy but have very little possibility to contribute to bringing down the price peaks and the volatility that is created in both production and costs as a result of that.
Mr. Speaker! Here I really want to agree with what Bergenblock is on regarding the fact that we need to have more legs to stand on. Battery storage and energy storage in general is something that it is important to have a strong focus on and pave the way for as a solution to the volatility of wind power and as something that allows us to get even better use of it in the system.
From the government's side, we fully embrace that offshore wind power is part of the solution – we need to have several legs to stand on – and that it can be implemented earlier. The question is only how much money we are going to spend on this. In the current situation, we cannot, for example, use the bottleneck revenues to cover the connection costs. We would then also be treating a type of power in a way that we do not do with any other type of power.
Both I and the government's investigators have previously looked at the issue of technology-neutral risk sharing for capital-intensive power production, such as offshore wind power. We are always open to it. But one must be aware that such a risk-sharing model – regarding the risk-sharing model that we now have for nuclear power – must be based on the relationship to what is being delivered.
Bergenblock comments on the recurring benefits of hydropower in the system. I can only agree there as well. Hydropower has a capacity factor well over 80. Then comes nuclear power with approximately 74. After that, there is a significant drop down to the offshore wind power with 18 and the onshore wind power with 11. That means that the power types are guaranteed to be in the system to very different degrees. Then one perhaps also needs to have risk sharing and instruments that relate to that. One is neutral towards the technology, but one cannot be neutral towards how much is delivered into the system.
Solar power has, according to SVK, doubled in recent years, and wind power is now the largest in the system. Unfortunately, that is part of the problem. That is why we are now trying to find compensatory measures. I do not hear quite clearly what the Center Party's proposed solution is. We cannot use the bottleneck revenues in the way that is requested. But we are prepared to pursue the ideas regarding incentives even for weather-dependent power production. We are also prepared to look further into the issue of technology-neutral risk sharing for capital-intensive power production. Further than that, it is difficult to go in this situation.
Christofer Bergenblock (C)
Mr. Speaker! In 2016, the Center Party was part of and entered into an energy agreement together with the Christian Democrats, the Moderates, the Green Party, and the Social Democrats. To agree on long-term rules of the game is a very good way to go. But it also applies that those who stand behind the agreement stick to the long-term rules of the game or ensure that one jointly agrees on new rules of the game.
The party that was the first of all to choose to leave this energy agreement was the Christian Democrats. The Moderates did the same ahead of the upcoming election campaign. Then it was finished.
We know that agreements of this form are needed. Furthermore, they are requested by, among others, the business community and industry. Svenskt Näringsliv is among those who have been clearest about wanting a broad energy agreement in Sweden, so that one knows what the conditions are for the expansion of energy and how the system will look during the coming years.
Centerpartiet is fully on board with entering into a broad and long-term energy agreement once again, where different types of power are handled in a similar way and where there are rules of the game. Then there is the question of whether there should be a risk-sharing model, whether state credit guarantees should be given, or whether one should simply be allowed to play on equal terms, but it is important that there is an equality.
The most important thing is that action is taken on this, that such an energy agreement is reached and that the result can subsequently be relied upon. This has, however, not happened so far during the years of the Tidö Government. My question is finally: Can we expect the Minister for Energy and Business to take the initiative for a long-term energy agreement that provides stability in the system and for the business community?
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Now I stand here representing the entire government. It is well known that the different parties have thought a bit differently and have been prepared at different times to reach a broader agreement on long-term sustainable rules for the energy sector. What I personally consider to be a poorly hidden secret.
What I think one should take note of is the great shift that has occurred in recent years. In this chamber, there is now a broad consensus to protect hydropower. Sometimes someone slips up – I thought I heard some concerned statements from Amanda Lind during a study visit regarding hydropower a while ago. But on the whole, there have been positive tones regarding the value of protecting hydropower.
Bergenblock highlights, for example, the issue of district heating. District heating is likewise incredibly important. I am glad that we have been able to restart Öresundsverket during this parliamentary term. We are now looking at a pilot project with gas turbines and are prepared to continue investing in Kraftlyftet, which can also in the short term pave the way for a better power balance in Sweden.
There is now a much broader consensus regarding the value of nuclear power today in Sweden and that it is needed for a long time to come. This is something that the majority in the chamber stands behind.
What I clearly hear from the Swedish people and from the business community is: Solve the task! We don't care whether you stand at press conferences or not – solve the task!
I am ready to continue speaking with everyone who wishes that we solve the task and build upon what we have done. We have moved away from the struggle between the power sources. We are heading towards technology neutrality. There shall be enough electricity there and when it is needed throughout the country.
I would like to thank you very much for the interpellation.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.