Response to interpellation 2025/26:453 on investments in the electricity grid
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD considers that the goal is 100 percent fossil-free electricity production by 2040 1. KD wants a powerful expansion of hydropower, combined heat and power, nuclear power, wind power, and solar power 1. KD argues that one cannot build one's way out of the electricity shortage with electricity grids 2, that hydropower is the best source of guaranteed electricity 3 and that nuclear power is important but should be seen in relation to the whole 3 4. SD considers that the biggest mistake has been closing six nuclear reactors 5. SD argues that the shortcomings of wind power create extra grid costs 5 and that Sweden would have been richer if one had invested in reinvestments in nuclear 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! Josef Fransson has asked me if I intend to work to make it possible to utilize gas power during a transition period to strengthen our energy system.
The goal for the composition of electricity production in 2040 is 100 percent fossil-free electricity production. In order to reach the climate goals and enable the climate transition, fossil fuels need to be replaced with fossil-free energy. To enable increased electrification, Sweden needs a powerful expansion of fossil-free electricity production. The government's long-term direction of energy policy is based on the fact that Sweden's prosperity, competitiveness, and security rest on a secure supply of fossil-free energy at competitive prices.
In the short term, up to 2030–2035, the Swedish Energy Agency assesses that it is primarily power increases within hydropower, combined heat and power, and existing nuclear power, as well as an expansion of land-based wind power and solar power, that can meet society's increasing demand for electricity.
Sweden imports all fossil gas today. The fact that a large part of the Swedish gas supply depends on a single entry point, from Denmark to the west Swedish gas grid, constitutes a risk to security of supply. To strengthen the security of supply for gas and to reduce the use of fossil fuels, the government has the ambition to replace fossil gas with nationally produced biogas. Such a development not only strengthens the national preparedness but also improves Sweden's opportunities to reach the climate goals. The expansion of biogas production for grid connection or liquefaction in Sweden has a large untapped potential.
The Government yesterday tasked the Swedish Energy Agency to review the support system for biogas in order, above all, to increase the input of nationally produced biogas into the west Swedish gas grid.
Until sufficient production of fossil-free electricity from nuclear power is in place, the government assesses that gas turbines will fulfill an important function in the electricity system to a greater extent than today. Gas turbines have the potential to be put into operation quickly, are operationally predictable, and can be placed where they provide the greatest benefit to the electricity system. The state-owned enterprise Svenska kraftnät already uses gas turbines today to provide important functions in the electricity system, such as the disturbance reserve, and to increase the transmission capacity in the Swedish power grid.
The Government decided at the end of 2025 on the design of the investment support within Kraftlyftet. Kraftlyftet contributes to securing the availability of electricity to Swedish households and companies where and when it is needed. The support may be granted to measures that maintain the security of supply in the electricity grid and to measures to meet an increased electricity use.
In the longer term, nuclear power is needed to secure the supply of electricity, but Kraftlyftet will strengthen the security of supply in the power system in the short term. The investments may, among other things, concern biomass power plants and gas turbines powered by renewable fuels.
State support within Kraftlyftet is regulated by the EU's general block exemption regulation, GBER. According to GBER, support can be provided to promote investments in renewable energy and high-efficiency combined heat and power. Against the background of the strained power situation in southern Sweden, there may be a need to investigate other possibilities to support investments in dispatchable electricity production that are not covered by the current general block exemption regulation. This applies particularly to types of technology such as gas turbines that have the capacity to be adapted to climate-neutral fuels in the long term. Continued preparation of the issue is ongoing within the Government Offices.
Josef Fransson (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Energy Ebba Busch, for the answer!
I have asked a question to the Minister which results in that we, during a transition period, should utilize gas power to strengthen our energy system and, not least, utilize the already existing investment Öresundsverket. It was once built to compensate for the loss of Barsebäck.
Even though it was not included in the question itself, I pointed out in the interpellation the astronomical investments in grid operations, which in my opinion are largely a consequence of poor energy policy – poor energy policy here in Sweden and poor energy policy in countries with which we are interconnected.
I will start with some questions before I proceed to the argumentation.
Question one: Has the government calculated how large the grid investments we could save ourselves would be if Öresundsverket were operated to a significant extent while waiting for new nuclear power? By significant extent, I am thinking perhaps 1,000–2,000 hours per year or something of that sort.
Question two: Has the government made any assessments of how much power allocation SVK and Eon could provide to waiting electricity customers in southern Sweden if Öresundsverket were operated to a significant extent?
Question three: Why, does the Minister believe, does Svenska kraftnät not use the bottleneck revenues for the operation of Öresundsverket and for counter-purchases to any significant extent?
Question four: Does the Minister agree that there is reason to reconsider the doctrine that all problems that arise should be solved with investments in grid operations?
Mr. Speaker! Perhaps we are beginning to see a brightening, but Europe, including Sweden, has suffered from a situation where ideology has shaped energy policy and where political scientists and lawyers, rather than engineers, have held the helm. It was believed that weather-dependent solar and wind power could replace predictable coal and nuclear power, and that all problems arising along the way could be solved with new power lines. How much this ideology has cost Sweden is difficult to grasp, but some speak of the order of magnitude 1,000 billion kronor.
Mr. Speaker! Both I myself and Energy Minister Ebba Busch see a future for Sweden where new nuclear power will once again constitute the base of Swedish electricity production, likely to a greater extent than during the early 2000s. But I also foresee us spending billions and billions more on new power lines that, to a large extent, will be obsolete the day when nuclear power reigns over our energy system again.
Many in the energy industry described the transmission grid as largely completed during the early 2000s. The focus was therefore on operation, maintenance, and efficiency rather than on large new investments. The investment frameworks during that time were around 700 million kronor per year. Since then, Svenska kraftnät's investment frameworks have increased to this year's 14.6 billion and are to be pushed up further, to 25 billion kronor per year, by 2029. The increased investment rate has so far, in aggregate, entailed additional costs of over 80 billion kronor in today's monetary value – almost an entire nuclear power plant.
The network investments can, of course, be linked to other things, such as reinvestments, stormproofing, and such things. But something that has also been very cost-driving has been this ideology: the expansion of wind power and the decommissioning of nuclear power.
The Minister is very welcome to reflect a bit on how we should think in the future. Should we use gas power to avoid grid expansion? And should we use Öresundsverket, which is actually just standing there waiting to be started?
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I note that I have received another battery of questions. I will do my best to answer them.
Regarding the first question, if we have calculated how large the power grid investments we could avoid would be if we operated Öresundsverket to a significant extent, the answer is no, there are no such calculations. But it is, of course, something that one can reason about.
The second question is connected to the first. Have we made any assessments regarding how much power allocation SVK and Eon could provide to waiting electricity customers in southern Sweden if this were to happen? My answer will be: We note that SVK's latest power balance report shows that we are now heading in the right direction again. After a period where we have only seen dark clouds on the power balance horizon, the power balance for Sweden has now improved by 2,000 megawatts, not least in southern Sweden. This stems largely specifically from Öresundsverket. The fact that it has been restarted and can be used today has meant that we have a much better power balance in southern Sweden; the improvement corresponds to 2,000 megawatts. It is always difficult with figures in politics, but it is almost as much as the power from two nuclear reactors.
We are now also seeing a strong reinvestment in power and district heating. This was on its way out due to, among other things, the previous government's waste incineration tax, which we have stopped. We are now clearly signaling to the industry that power and district heating are prioritized and welcome, so that long-term investment calculations can be made. This is seen, among other things, in Kraftringen's large investments outside Eslöv in southern Sweden.
To move on to question three regarding counter-purchases and the like: SVK has a number of different measures that they can use to strengthen transmission capacity, and our view is that these measures are being used. This is something that we, and I as the minister responsible for the agency, of course have an almost constant dialogue with them about.
Question four: Does the Minister agree that there is reason to reconsider the doctrine of an over-reliance on the power grid? Yes, that is the line of Sweden and the four coalition parties, which is also anchored in the EU committee, both for Sweden's part and for the European Union as a whole. It is not possible to build your way out of a deficit when it comes to necessary power production with a power grid. This results in a shaky and incredibly expensive power grid that does not become sufficiently robust.
My conclusion is that if one continues to have an over-reliance on the power grid in the way we have seen in many different parts of society, one does not see energy as ultimately a security issue, which it is. It is a question of jobs, growth, and the possibility of reducing emissions without it occurring at the expense of competitiveness, but ultimately it is also truly a question of security. That is the line that Sweden applies.
Josef Fransson (SD)
Mr. Speaker! We have a surplus of energy at the same time as Swedish companies are queuing for power allocation. Why has it become like this? I thought I would allow myself a brief history. That we between 1999 and 2020 closed six nuclear reactors is the single greatest mistake we have made. By "we" I mean perhaps not primarily the Energy Minister and myself, but the red and red-green governments before us.
Without getting stuck for too long on this particular question, which is fairly well-debated in this chamber, we can only state that this has created expensive problems. The second biggest mistake was to push a lot of wind power into the system with subsidies, which the market actually never demanded – which I mean broke the Swedish electricity market.
It is not only Sweden that has applied the prevailing destructive ideology, but the problems affecting us also come from the outside.
We have spoken quite a lot in this chamber about Germany and how it has affected Swedish electricity prices that the Germans have shut down all of their 17 operational nuclear reactors through the Fukushima decision while simultaneously investing in enormous amounts of solar and wind power. In addition to creating very volatile weather-dependent power systems, they have also reduced their energy production by around 20 percent net. This naturally affects Germany's neighbors, including Sweden, regarding both electricity prices and electricity transmission.
Now, however, another saboteur has appeared, namely Great Britain. The British too have become a major importer of electricity and, similar to Germany, have decommissioned base power in favor of solar and wind. Despite investments in weather-dependent power, they have reduced their total electricity production by nearly 25 percent in just over a decade.
This has prompted Norway to build a 1,400-megawatt HVDC line to the United Kingdom. In addition to that line, an HVDC line has also been built between Norway and Germany, also at 1,400 megawatts. When these lines were put into operation in 2021, it had major consequences for Sweden as the electricity flows now often come from the east, for example from Finland or from eastern Sweden. They then go westward through central Sweden and further to Norway via alternating current lines over which we have no control at all or can control. This is not what our Swedish grid is constructed for.
It has instead resulted in loop flows and in Sweden having found it more difficult to export surpluses southward. This creates an additional need for reserve power, countertrading, and future grid reinforcements, and the prices in SE4 are being pushed up relative to the rest of Sweden.
Mr. Speaker! Series compensation is something we have applied since the 50s. The technique briefly consists of installing series capacitors on long power lines. Through this, the reactive resistance is reduced, which allows up to 50 percent more electricity to be transmitted. This is now being threatened, and there is even a planned phasing out of the series compensation on certain critical sections, particularly in section 2. It is not because the series capacitors are bad or outdated, but it is a direct consequence of the expansion of wind power.
It is technically complicated to connect new wind power to these lines, and therefore one is forced to build double lines. It would be interesting to look at how much extra grid costs the wind power has added to Sweden just in that respect.
If the Minister feels inclined, she is very welcome to reflect a little on how she and the government view the fact that electricity grid customers must constantly pay for the shortcomings of wind power.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I venture to return to the question of capacity factor. Sweden is one of the countries that has an absolutely best electricity system. We have an almost completely fossil-free electricity production, that is to say, Sweden produces electricity without a lot of emissions. We do not have a lot of oil or gas, but it is more than 99 percent fossil-free.
The bulk of Sweden's electricity production comes from hydropower and nuclear power, and then we have a huge amount of wind power. Sweden and Denmark have the most wind power in Europe. We also have a bit of solar power on top of that. These different types of power deliver different amounts of guaranteed electricity – what is usually called the capacity factor. It is a technical term. Politics cannot decide how it should be defined, which I have debated in several different contexts.
It is about guaranteed electricity, as I call it in simpler Swedish. The absolute best there is hydropower, which stands at approximately 84 percent. Then comes nuclear power, which stands at 74 percent. Then there is a huge drop down to wind power, where offshore wind power stands at around 18 percent for Sweden's part. Onshore wind power stands at around 11 percent. One can therefore get out a bit more guaranteed electricity from offshore wind power.
This means that it varies how much electricity is steadily delivered into the power grid. When electricity from, for example, a hydropower plant is to go into the power cables, one knows how much cable is required to receive the electricity, because one always knows how much electricity the hydropower delivers. Wind power, on the other hand, sometimes delivers a huge amount and sometimes a very small amount of electricity, and then a much larger cable is required that can handle when the wind power delivers at its maximum. But on average, it is less that is delivered. One can say that a motorway must be built instead of a small rural road, and it is clear that it becomes more expensive.
The government has taken many measures. There has also been a certain shift in the global situation, which has enabled us to halve Swedes' electricity prices between 2022 and 2025. Despite this, many have experienced that electricity costs are still high, because the grid fees have gone up. Now we have more tools to deploy against unjustifiably increased grid fees, which the red-greens did not have, but the cost for Swedish households and companies has de facto been driven up. In that case, we need to find a balance.
Gas turbines are not a quick fix that will give us more guaranteed electricity in the short term. But we are open to it, which is the reason why we have had a pilot project there.
Nuclear power is important, necessary and right, but it takes time.
How are we to get more guaranteed electricity from the wind power that already exists? We need to continue to devote time and effort to ensuring that not everything goes toward export.
In short: Yes, it is clear that the electricity grid has become much more expensive with very much weather-dependent power production. It is good if more Swedes understand that.
Josef Fransson (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Energy Minister Ebba Busch, for the contribution!
Now, I may not be quoting the minister exactly, but I thought she said something about us having the best energy system in Europe because we have no fossil component in production. Sure, one can admit that it is positive.
Sometimes I think about what energy system we could have had if, above all, the red-green parties, but also a previous bourgeois government, had not made all the insane energy policy decisions. If the path instead had been consistently laid out for reinvestments in nuclear power, Sweden would be a significantly wealthier country today.
As I spoke about in a previous speech, the backbone grid was considered fully built out in the early 2000s. We had an electricity production that at that time served Swedish industry incredibly well. Imagine if Vattenfall had just left its European adventures with the Nuon deal and German brown coal! Then losses of 100–150 billion kronor could have been avoided.
In addition to this, another number of billions in losses on Vattenfall's wind power operations can be added. This can be added to with 100 billion for electricity certificates and all wind power-driven grid investments at tens of billions. As I also said in a previous speech here in the debate, SVK's procured regulation has aggregated cost 26 billion.
All this combined could have funded several new nuclear reactors. The sums I enumerated correspond to several hundred billion.
It is sad to look back on how incredibly poorly Sweden's energy system has been managed over the last 20 years. I believe the Minister for Energy can agree with at least some of this.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Mr. Speaker! We may perhaps have to include a disclaimer regarding some parts of it.
I have said the most important things, and I want to conclude by thanking you for the interpellation. It is good that we are discussing these questions and that we are able to put costs into relation to the whole. There has been a lot of focus on what Sweden's new nuclear power program costs. This needs to be put into relation to what one gets from an investment that is intended to last for 120 years and which is also reliable and means that there do not need to be as many cost increases when it comes to the electricity grid. One needs to look more at the whole of the energy system when evaluating different investments and comparing them against each other.
We are on the right track. We have turned Swedish energy policy around. I sometimes also get stuck in reflections on how it would have been if those decisions hadn't been made earlier, but now it is our responsibility to ensure that the ship gets the right course. It is urgent. I think we are doing well and look forward to doing more in the coming years, if the Swedish people let us do so.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.