Response to interpellation 2025/26:75 on the future of Kriegers flak
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD argues that Kriegers flak has been paused on market grounds and that the state should not intervene for individual projects 1. KD wants to create incentives for wind power to contribute to the system's robustness 2, emphasizes technology neutrality regarding compensation for socially important infrastructure 3 and argues that the focus has shifted from specific types of power to what the power system should deliver 4. KD considers that Vattenfall does not see the project as profitable due to the economy, inflation, and lower electricity prices 3. S argues that the state should cover the grid connection fee to quickly get the construction started 5 and that the state should take more measures to get projects in place 6. S criticizes the market principle 7 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)
Madam Speaker! Adrian Magnusson has asked me about the government and I intend to take some measures to get the construction of Kriegers flak started and, if not, what the reasons are why the government and I do not take any further measures.
I find it somewhat difficult to imagine what measures Adrian Magnusson means that the government should take to save an individual project that has been paused on market grounds. Under several governments with different political colors, individual projects that are in themselves commendable have, for various reasons, been terminated or put on pause without the state intervening. This has included, among other things, offshore wind farms, terminals to increase the security of supply in the gas grid, and mines.
Electricity production needs to be expanded to meet electricity consumption in accordance with the planning goal for the electricity system, while large parts of the existing electricity production will need to be replaced due to age. The Government wants to provide good conditions for all fossil-free types of energy. It is fundamental to have a reliable electricity production in place to carry out the climate transition, to create a good investment climate, and for households to be able to afford to pay their electricity bills.
On December 18 this year, the government will receive a report from the Swedish Energy Agency, Svenska kraftnät, and the Energy Markets Inspectorate with proposals for incentives to improve the contribution of intermittent power production to the robustness of the electricity system.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! Thanks to the Minister for Energy and Industry for the answer! I understand that one is not the Minister's or the Government's favorite when returning to this thorn in the Government's side. This is not the first time we have talked about Kriegers flak. But that this is a thorn in the Government's tender side is not difficult to notice when listening to the Minister's answer today. The Minister began her answer by claiming, as usual with great rhetorical emphasis, that she does not understand what measures are intended. It is a clear sign that this is a troublesome issue for the Government.
I must nevertheless say that when I heard the answer here in the chamber today, I was somewhat surprised by the harsh starting point. I think, despite everything, that the minister has been quite open about wanting to see a broad energy agreement. If the state were to support an energy project that could provide very much help to southern Sweden in the absolute near term, it would have been to pick a rather low-hanging fruit. I actually believe that the Minister for Energy and Business also knows this. That is why the minister's introduction becomes so special.
Madam Speaker! I believe the Minister knows what measures I am referring to, namely ensuring that the wind farm is built. It has been possible to do on both the Danish and the German side. It should surely be possible on the Swedish side as well, if there had truly been a will to get more electricity quickly to the people of Skåne and southern Sweden.
The Minister spoke, among other things, in his response about a report they will receive in December regarding incentives to get electricity production started. It is commendable, but at the same time, we do not need a report to know that if the grid connection fee had been paid by the state, as it is in many other countries, Vattenfall would have already pressed the button and the construction would have started.
The Minister often says that long-term rules of the game in energy policy are requested by the business community and that it is desirable to have such rules and agreements in place. That we agree on. Unfortunately, there was no energy agreement. It is only to be regretted. Why it became so, the Minister for Energy and Business probably knows better than I do, even though I have my theories. The entire government base was probably not as eager for an agreement as the Minister for Energy and Business has expressed being.
If it is long-term rules of the game that are being requested and the Minister considers it important to have more energy production in southern Sweden, it is quite simple, at least in my and the Social Democrats' opinion, to pick the low-hanging fruit that can provide more energy production and also do so very quickly.
I would say that getting fruits is as low-hanging as getting started with the construction of Kriegers flak. It is not possible to blame a security interest or the Swedish Armed Forces' will when it comes to Kriegers flak. Everything is ready. What is required is that the state covers the land connection fee, which applied when the project was first launched by the state-owned company Vattenfall and which, as has been said, is not unusual in other countries in Europe.
Madam Speaker! The primary thing is surely to achieve energy production in southern Sweden? Why should the government treat Krieger's flak as a project that must necessarily stand on market grounds? Will the government do the same with all other energy projects in southern Sweden? Based on the rhetoric one hears from the government in other issues concerning energy production, it does not seem so.
I will return to the low-hanging fruit. If one truly wants more energy quickly, secure long-term agreements, and pick the low-hanging fruit, one ensures that Kriegers flak is built. I cannot sign for Fredrik Olovsson, but if the minister wants to make an announcement here today about reaching an agreement with the Social Democrats on building Kriegers flak, I believe Fredrik Olovsson would welcome it. What does the minister say? Are we in agreement? Is Kriegers flak a go?
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I have a comment regarding what was said about who is the Energy Minister's favorite. If you are a bit difficult in the debates, offer relevant opposition, and furthermore want to discuss entrepreneurship, innovation, or energy, you are a favorite of the Energy Minister. Adrian Magnusson can probably count himself among my favorites.
With that said, I also want to comment on what was said regarding the tone in the government's response. I still think that Adrian Magnusson is reading into a tone that doesn't really exist. I asked a sincerely intended question about what Adrian Magnusson means for us to do regarding a single project. The member also is completely right when he, Madam Speaker, brings up a number of parts that I have marked as important for the government, namely the technology neutrality and the need for more power production in southern Sweden – especially such that is more accessible and provides more guaranteed electricity and thus can improve the power shortage situation and remedy the shortage that exists in southern Sweden.
It is also clear that I have opened up for more risk-sharing models similar to those we have for nuclear power and other capital-intensive types of power. In that case, it is also about which problems one can be involved in solving and what characteristics one contributes to the system.
For those listening to the debate, I would like to point out that Sweden has historically large electricity surpluses but still very volatile electricity prices, precisely because we have a lot of weather-dependent power production in the system.
From a European perspective, Sweden has one of the lowest electricity prices in the entire EU. We should be happy about that. But if you ask the Swede "Is it nice to pay the electricity bills?", the answer from the vast majority is "No!". This is partly due to the unpredictability – it is like a roller coaster – and partly because it is significantly higher than what the Swede has become accustomed to over the years when we had more base load power in the system.
We can look at how much wind power we have. Sweden, together with Denmark, has the most wind power production per capita in the world. From the end of 2024, wind power is the single largest power source in installed production capacity in Sweden. But it does not solve the major power shortage problem right now. It also does not solve the problem of very volatile electricity prices right now.
That is the reason why, in my response, I so clearly point out the new assignment that we are to have reported in December. I know that it is also welcomed by the Social Democrats. It is about how we can create incentives for wind power to deliver more of what the system needs. In the short term, we need more from wind power, district heating, and other types of power while waiting for nuclear power. We can, so to speak, not add any new electricity production at all, but we must not pretend that it is the solution to everything.
I want to conclude with the facts in the case regarding the connection fee, as has been pointed out. Svenska kraftnät itself assessed that the abolition of the connection fee constituted an impermissible state aid. Therefore, I must ask a question in return. It should be said in this context that Krieger's flak has been paused five times. Are there other proposals from the Social Democrats? I am open to discussing them in that case.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! Several other countries around Europe have contributed to the connection fee and taken care of it in projects such as these. One might perhaps bounce Svenska kraftnät's assessment back and ask them what it is that makes it possible in other countries but not in Sweden. What is it that makes Sweden so clearly violate the state aid rules when other countries do not? That is something one could ask them about.
I react to some things in the Minister's second speech. She says, for example, that it is important to have more energy production in the short term and mentions wind power herself as an example. Kriegers flak could have been completed by 2030. It could have provided 2.7 terawatt-hours per year when it was finished. That is electricity for almost as many households as there are in all of Skåne. It is a project that can be completed in the short term. It is also a project that can provide very much electricity to southern Sweden. I therefore think it becomes a bit strange when one says that we need more energy in the short term and mentions wind power but at the same time does not want the clearest project, Kriegers flak, to come to fruition.
If one means that this cannot be done on market-based grounds, I hope that the Minister for Energy and Business has had a dialogue with the state-owned company Vattenfall about what it is that makes it so. Is it something other than the grid connection fee that makes Vattenfall not see that this can be done on market-based grounds?
What has been communicated from Vattenfall – in any case publicly – is that it is the onshore connection fee that makes it so that they do not consider it possible to achieve economics in the whole. They also have a competitive situation where other offshore wind projects around Europe have the onshore connection fee paid.
Overall, there is a lot of talk about things standing on market-based grounds, and that was also what the minister was into. There are other energy projects that the government is pushing very hard that do not stand on market-based grounds. Therefore, it becomes a bit special when one points out Kriegers flak and that just this project shall stand on market-based grounds, while there are many other large energy projects that do not.
In those cases, the state should take risks and costs. There are even proposals within, for example, nuclear power, that one should guarantee a minimum price on nuclear power for 40 years. If that is not helping an energy project that lacks market grounds, then I don't know what it is. But maybe I am overinterpreting the minister. I did, after all, hear that I was somewhat of a favorite, so maybe I shouldn't be too mean in my comments.
I want to return to what I concluded my first speech with before the Minister takes the floor again. I perceive that there are openings to reach an energy agreement in our country. There seems to be a genuine interest from the Minister for Energy and Industry. That this interest is met by the Social Democrats, the Minister for Energy and Industry himself has expressed in various contexts.
Therefore, I want to say again that I truly believe that one could easily have reached an agreement on Kriegers flak. It would provide a lot of electricity in a short time, and it would have been a welcome addition to energy production in Sweden. Just because Sweden and Denmark are the countries in the world that have the most wind power does not mean that one cannot have even more wind power. It is energy regardless of whether Sweden or Denmark has the most wind power.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I want to start by correcting myself, because apparently I cannot read my own handwriting. Krieger's flak has been paused several times. I have written "several", not "five". I do not dare to bet on the exact number of times it has been paused.
Let me answer Adrian Magnusson's follow-up question regarding the dialogue with state-owned Vattenfall concerning Kriegers flak. They have already publicly communicated several reasons, and actually, they can be boiled down to primarily three.
The first reason is the economy. It would of course have been a relief for them if someone else had covered the cost of the connection cable from the offshore wind farm to land. I want to emphasize that we are not doing this for any other type of power, but that is what Adrian Magnusson refers to and what Vattenfall also points out externally.
The second reason is higher costs due to inflation.
The third reason is lower electricity prices. The conditions for profitability have therefore been radically affected.
If we look outside Sweden, this is what we see in country after country. It is enough to just look across the Sound towards Denmark. There, several and not least one very large wind power company have ended up in a tough situation, not least when they wanted to build more in a country that already has a lot of weather-dependent power production.
This is a problem in many ways, unless one has the possibility to secure power production from somewhere else in the short term. That is why I return to the measure of finding support structures in either permit processes or economics that provide incentives for wind power to contribute more of what the system needs, but also of what improves stability and profitability.
It is one of the reasons why we have so far made decisions on 70 measures that are not about sitting on our hands waiting for nuclear power, but about here and now and up until 2030.
The heavy lifting, for which there is broad support here in the chamber and also from the Social Democrats, is reinforced with a total of 2 billion to ensure impact where it is needed. I believe there is unexplored potential here to seek even broader consensus for more measures.
The pilot project with gas turbines is important to see if we can find ways to release more power to the industries. We have streamlined the connection queues so that more companies, thanks to that, receive new connections and more power. We succeeded in what many said was completely impossible, namely buying back Öresundsverket and restarting it. Hydroelectric power has received better conditions here and now. And we have given nuclear power long-term and stable conditions.
Socially important infrastructure and other such things that are necessary do not always need to stand on market grounds. I have no problem with that. But if we are to try to compensate for it, I think technology neutrality is important. It must work in accordance with our delivery security goal and our planning goal while still being feasible. Svenska kraftnät has then assessed that it was not to use, for example, the bottleneck revenues for the connection fee in this way.
I want to confirm that I have not concluded the energy talks or said that it is not possible to reach an agreement in the future. There is de facto broad support in this chamber. I still hope for it and urge parties on both my side of politics and the red-green side to seek such solutions. It could mean a way forward for several of the offshore wind power projects that have already been decided.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for Energy and Industry for the answer! I believe that there are still certain things we have a common view of and agree on. I perceive it as the Minister meaning that more energy production is needed in the long run, and that is indeed the case. It is needed now and perhaps should have been needed even earlier.
I am becoming repetitive, but I want to return to the fact that Krieger's floats could have provided a lot of electricity very quickly. Therefore, I think that if one has a state-owned company, which is also to be responsible for the construction, it should be able to take more measures to ensure that that type of project gets completed. Furthermore, there are surely many other solutions, battery solutions and the like, that one could spend more time on if one wants to get wind power production started.
The Minister for Energy and Industry and I have debated similar issues before. I have heard about this with 70 measures. It is certainly commendable, but it is obvious that more energy will be needed both today and in the future. We see what energy needs exist in this country over the next 20–30 years, not only in southern Sweden but also in northern Sweden. Therefore, we need all the energy production we can get.
I think, however, once again, that it becomes somewhat attention-grabbing that one emphasizes the market principle so much. This is so important when it concerns Kriegers flak. There are other energy projects where it is not at all as important. I have a bit of difficulty understanding this selective planned economy, I must say. If one really wants more energy production quickly, one should be able to say: We think that this project is also important, and the state shall do what it can to get it in place because it can provide very much electricity to many households in a short time. I think that one must be able to maintain that line for different types of energy, especially when it concerns a project that is so important for the energy supply, not least in southern Sweden.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking Adrian Magnusson for a good interpellation debate, which demonstrates differences but also possible ways forward.
I want to conclude by saying something about the guiding principles of technology neutrality and incentives, either in form in some way or regarding financing, which also takes into account that different things are contributed to the system. Our hydropower contributes with stability and wind power, for example, with flexibility and additionally available power production in the shorter term. It is not possible to expand hydropower as much as one wants, for example; that is a reality we face. Nuclear power is very capital-intensive to build and takes longer to get in place, even if it then stands there for a long time.
If these are the guiding principles – technology neutrality and prioritizing what one can contribute to the system – there are ways forward in this chamber. But then all parties, despite the fact that we are heading into an election year, must decide that is where they land.
I want to conclude by saying that I perceive a very clear shift in energy policy during these years, from an obsession with which specific types of power the power system shall consist of to it now being more of a discussion about what the power system shall be capable of delivering. This I welcome; I believe it is very good.
Perhaps there is an opportunity for continued dialogue after we have received this report on December 18, which in the short term could pave the way for more power production specifically from wind power. Here I also want to remind that there are several offshore wind power projects, in addition to Kriegers flak, which are permitted and which would be possible to release in the shorter term. And yes, that would be good for Sweden.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.