Response to interpellation 2025/26:522 on the management of Vattenfall

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Tobias Andersson has asked me if I intend to review the management of Vattenfall AB to ensure an effective implementation of the government's energy policy.

The government is implementing several reforms of the Swedish electricity market in order to achieve the goals of the government's energy policy. In the deregulated energy market, Vattenfall and the company's competitors play an important role in the Swedish energy system.

The State decides on the board of directors and the articles of association for state-owned companies at the annual general meeting. The companies' business focus is based on the Riksdag's decision, and the Riksdag has decided that Vattenfall shall generate a market-based return by, among other things, conducting energy activities on a commercial basis and simultaneously leading the development towards environmentally sustainable energy production.

The requirement for businesslike conduct ensures that the state, as a shareholder, does not distort the competition between Vattenfall and its competitors. Functional competition and equal conditions for the market's actors ensure a functioning electricity market.

Vattenfall is subject to the same laws as privately owned companies, and according to the Companies Act, it is the board and the management that are responsible for running the operations within the business direction determined by the owner.

According to the state's ownership policy, Vattenfall is expected to act commercially, sustainably, and exemplarily in a way that maintains public trust. This includes paying well-considered compensations. The Government has, through the new ownership policy, clarified the expectations for all companies with state ownership. The Board and the management are responsible for ensuring that Vattenfall is managed exemplarily within the framework of the legislation, the articles of association, and the state's ownership policy.

Vattenfall is an important company for Sweden and the country's energy supply. I and the government have full confidence that the company's board and management act in accordance with the Riksdag's mandate and the owner's expectations.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Finance, for the answer!

Vattenfall is, as is well known, a fully state-owned company whose direction and operations are to a very high degree influenced by both decisions in this chamber and by state corporate governance. Over the years, the direction of the company's operations has varied in accordance with the political winds in society at the time. This can be exemplified by the fact that they have engaged in everything from coal to an exclusive focus on renewable power.

Different governments have, over the years, left their mark on the company through their ownership dialogues, adjustments of the board's composition, and so on. This has also been the case for the government that the Sverigedemokraterna are cooperating with during this mandate period. The government early replaced parts of the Miljöpartiet's favorites in the company's board.

This political governance – with everything from previous governments using laws, taxes, and the board of directors to halt nuclear power, to this government expecting nuclear power projects from the company – is not strange in itself, given that this is something we own and that we need to adapt to the voters' will in our ownership. However, it has undeniably caused some turbulence for the company.

Vattenfall and its operations have therefore, throughout the entire mandate period, been a constant companion for the Tidö parties. The success of the major restructuring of the energy policy is directly dependent on Vattenfall's operations.

Against this background, the Sweden Democrats have consistently wanted to tighten the management of the company and, among other things, stated that the current CEO was appointed during a completely different phase for the company and should reasonably be replaced by the board during the ongoing restructuring of the operations. A CEO who was appointed when the owners only wanted to see renewable power production should reasonably not remain when the owners want to see nuclear power investments.

At the same time, it must be admitted that there have been improvements from the company's side, and after much back and forth, Vattenfall has started the project for new nuclear power at Ringhals. Now other actors are taking a larger role in it, but despite this, there are a number of deficiencies in Vattenfall's work linked to this project, I would like to assert – even though it is moving forward.

Vattenfall chose, without political anchoring, to remove large-scale reactors from its supplier selection and therefore maintains space in the grid's connection point for offshore wind power, which they want to build in connection with Ringhals – or have wanted to, at least. It took Vattenfall half a year from this de-selection until they could submit their state aid application. It could have happened on the same day, given what is expected in the initial stage.

Vattenfall has still not secured ownership of the land in connection with the project and so on. I would like to hear the Minister for Finance reason regarding whether Vattenfall's share in the Ringhals project lives up to expectations.

At the same time, it is at times difficult to see the difference between Vattenfall's communication and marketing and that of the Green Party. They sound the same, and they propose roughly the same things. Wherever I am in the country, I meet voters who are dissatisfied with Vattenfall – both with their communication and with their operations.

Does the minister still see that the company lives up to the expectations?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Tobias Andersson, for the question! The short answer is yes. Now we have a company that, together with nine large industrial companies in Sweden, is moving forward step by step with nuclear power at and near Ringhals.

We have a company that certainly has many errors and shortcomings – I know that Tobias Andersson usually points that out – but which turns over 234 billion. It is a company that exists in many countries and which acts partially differently in different countries because different countries have different political attitudes toward what they want for the energy mix.

Sweden is a nuclear power country and has been for a long time, and in that, Vattenfall has played a very large role. I completely share Tobias Andersson's view that when we took office and our four parties took responsibility, Sweden naturally belonged to the previous owner, i.e., the previous government, which had steered the company Vattenfall in a different direction than we are doing now.

Since then, quite a lot has happened, so to speak. There is no other company in Sweden that has come as far as Vattenfall, together with Industrikraft and now Videberg, in taking so many steps. There is no other company that does that.

Could this have gone faster? Yes, partially, but if one believes that the success for nuclear power only consists in Vattenfall, I want to say that it is also – as I know Tobias Andersson is aware of – that it is a legislation that has changed. We have now removed the obstacles that have existed for new nuclear power in Sweden.

We have worked with a risk-sharing model. It is serious, and it really should not be rushed through. When we think about investments that lie far in the future – Tobias Andersson is somewhat younger than I am, so to speak – it is clear that we must develop the best models, whether they are for Vattenfall, Videkraft, or other companies.

We have thus changed the legislation, and we now have a good risk-sharing model in place. I am responsible for this issue and Vattenfall, Madam Speaker. Is it a perfect company? No. Do they do what we now want? Yes, and I think that is important.

Then one can have views on details and parts of Vattenfall's work, and Tobias Andersson certainly does. Of course, we also do as owners and the Government Offices, and during our owner dialogues, we discuss the direction and the future a great deal.

This is, however, as said, a large company that exists in many markets. That one is also a large wind power producer in Europe, because many have requested exactly wind power, is not a problem. It strengthens Vattenfall's total operations instead. Last year, it resulted in over 30 billion in positive result, which goes back to the state treasury.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I believe that the Minister for Finance and I in many respects share the view on the state's corporate portfolio, whether it should shrink further during the next mandate period and so on.

When it comes to Vattenfall specifically, I do not think the handling of the Ringhals project lives up to the expectations we have had for the company. Just as the Minister mentions, we have really cleared the way: we have removed the obstacles and the legal restrictions, and if one believes the statements from the Commission and others, we perhaps have the most well-nuanced state aid model in Europe. Despite this, it is not moving at the pace one can expect.

Now Vattenfall has made its final downscaling. I will not stand here and review it, but I have expressed my views to Videberg Kraft and the department. But one still does not have control over the site, which means that one is not in a position where one can begin any of the upcoming permit processes towards the Land and Environment Court and towards the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority.

In order to be able to start this, the entire or parts of the nature reserve need to be lifted, and there the county administrative board seems to be dragging its feet – and failing, if I'm honest. There are also one or two private properties remaining that Vattenfall will need to expropriate if they are not bought out. That would naturally cause the project to drag on even longer.

It is completely incomprehensible to me that Vattenfall, in an investment where the state is contributing hundreds of billions in CFDs, loans and so on, cannot buy out one or two landowners by making them an offer that they accept, but instead worries that it risks affecting the price picture for future land expropriation for power grid expansion or similar.

One should have had the competence a long time ago, and one should almost immediately after having now completed the down-selection be ready to begin the upcoming permit processes. That is not the case, however, and I perceive that it shows a need for the state to be clearer in its governance of Vattenfall, in order to ensure that this happens.

Now I have let this reasoning drag on a bit, Madam Speaker, and I would still like to highlight the articles that Dagens industri has written about the company in relatively recent times. They have, among other things, written that Vattenfall during the 2020s has spent 10 billion kronor on marketing, communication, and sales. That is probably much more money than the owners, that is to say the Swedish people, consider reasonable for a company that to some extent engages in monopolistic activities and otherwise operates in a very regulated market.

It is difficult to trace exactly how every krona has been divided between these areas, but Dagens industri writes: "The state electricity giant stands behind several spectacular campaigns with some of the world's most expensive actors and fashion models." It is therefore not the case that one has saved on the marketing and communication budget.

It is true that money has still been distributed to the state, because a large profit was made – absolutely. It is, of course, also difficult to determine whether that profit would have been made if the campaign had not been carried out. But it sticks in the eyes of ordinary people when they see what the CEO earns, that 1 billion was distributed in various bonuses last year, and that 10 billion has been spent on, among other things, marketing and communication in recent years. It provokes people.

Does the Minister see a need for measures linked to this?

In this speech, Rashid Farivar (SD) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Tobias Andersson again for the question.

I think that the ownership dialogues with all our companies, and also the governance of all our companies, are about being clear about what the policy and the direction is. But the companies, of course, also make decisions themselves – especially if they are large and competing in a European market.

I completely agree with Tobias Andersson and understand that it stings that Vattenfall has certain types of bonuses with very large amounts. Now, one has certainly not had it in the management or in that way, but it is clear that it stings for an ordinary person with a low income – I do not mean myself – and perhaps an electric-heated villa.

When it comes to advertising campaigns, I don't think it's something that either Tobias Andersson or I are better at than various state or private companies, but yes, I can understand that even that stands out. It is, however, important to remember that this is one of the largest energy companies we have and that they operate in a market and in different countries.

It is, of course, also a very important part both for the electricity supply to function and for the transition. We know, for example, that nuclear power is fossil-free and also good for future generations.

We govern Vattenfall as we govern other companies. We may have some more contact with Vattenfall precisely because it is a large company, which now also has a focus on new nuclear power. The board and the management have primary responsibility for different parts of the operations, but we as the Riksdag and the government – with coalition partners – can also govern, and that is exactly what we have done during these four years. Now, for the first time in a very long time – in several decades – we see that one is moving forward with building new nuclear power.

Yes, the state will enter as a partial owner in Videberg Kraft further ahead, but we are also owners through Vattenfall. Fundamentally, I have confidence in what Vattenfall does, in the board, and in how they work. That they are doing this together with nine large industrial actors is a great strength – truly a great strength. It also provides some legitimacy and, so to speak, a quality stamp that large, successful companies want to be part of the investment. It creates stability and security, and there is likely no difference there.

Yes, it stings the eyes. That is the short answer to the question. Tobias Andersson also received a somewhat longer answer.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for both the short and the long answer from the Minister for Finance.

I thought I would return a bit to what I concluded with, namely the marketing that the company has engaged in, which has been quite spectacular and undeniably costly.

Perhaps the latest example from Vattenfall's campaign that has stuck in people's memories is that they brought in Samuel L. Jackson to talk about offshore wind power and seagrass chips. Vattenfall is, therefore, a company that does not even build offshore wind power in Sweden. They have no ongoing project regarding offshore wind power in our country, that is to say, the country that owns the company. Still, they bring in a Hollywood actor to market the product – which they, as it turns out, do not even offer to their owners here in Sweden.

On the other hand, Vattenfall has offshore wind power projects in other countries. How has that gone? Just a couple of years ago, write-downs and provisions of almost 6 billion had to be made for loss-making offshore wind power projects in other countries. We thus have a company that has lost extensive sums on projects of this kind in other countries, but which does not have projects of that kind in our country, and which nevertheless buys TV time and pays Hollywood actors to showcase the product that it has lost money on in other countries – and which does not exist on the Swedish market.

I will be honest and say that I find it difficult to reconcile how this is reasonable marketing for a company that also carries out lobbying in Sweden to, via the electricity grid collective, force-finance the connection costs for offshore wind power. Only then do they want to build the product that they hire Hollywood actors to show off to the Swedish people.

This provokes me and likely very many others.

In this speech, Rashid Farivar (SD) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the discussion.

This is certainly provocative. There are also certainly different target groups – some may think that this is absolutely fantastic advertising and be strengthened by it. However, I do not decide on that, and one might be glad that I am not involved in expressing opinions on or editing advertising films.

We have many strong state-owned companies. Some of them have social missions, while others operate in a more or less free market. SJ, Vattenfall, LKAB and many other companies generate values that are important for Sweden. Do these companies do everything perfectly? No. Has this government governed the companies? Yes, with a new, clear ownership policy and frequent contacts. The company we are talking about now is actually, together with the state otherwise and large industries, on its way to getting new nuclear power in place.

With this, I would like to thank Tobias Andersson for his persistence. It is not meant ironically; persistence is good. He raises important issues, and I know that he wants what is best for Sweden. I hope that the member has a pleasant summer and, before that, a happy Midsummer.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)